Tigertail Foods is a wholistic pet food and treat company. We use only human-grade
ingredients that come
from trusted sources.
Your pet's health is our first
concern and everything we make is motivated by
the principle
that healthy food helps make healthy pets.
Sit, Stay, READ!
September 1, 2011
Peanut butter and jelly, Mom and apple pie, and kids and dogs. Natural pairings, right? Well, not so fast. Those first two sets might be solidly in place still, but kids and dogs are not as cohesive as they once were. This month Leslie takes a look at what is happening to our kids - the ones with two-legs and the ones with fur - and how our view of what used to be a unified team is unraveling.
If you have a story you’d like to tell us about, write me. We love hearing about people or animals or groups that make the world a happier, better place to be, and if we use your story you'll get a free pound of cookies!
Children and Dogs – The Next Great Divide?
by Leslie Crane Rugg
Just a few months ago, I was astounded to learn that a place I know fairly well – in an area where I once lived – is undergoing a revolution. I’m not talking about anything as dramatic as recent events in Northern Africa and the Middle East, but, nonetheless, a sociopolitical development that threatens a natural bond right in our own United States. I refer to the Arlington County Parks Department in Virginia, just a stone’s throw from our nation’s capital, that is proposing to ban children younger than eight years old (including babies in strollers) from its dog parks and only allow children from eight to fourteen into dog areas if supervised by an adult at all times. Other city and county parks in the same geographic region already have such ordinances in place, prohibiting or requiring supervision of children in dog-only designated locations.
What? Now we have laws in place that separate children from dogs and dogs from children on public ground? By doing so, are we not establishing an artificial division between owners of dogs and parents of children that also establishes legal precedent? Is this situation an outcome of the increasing litigious nature of our society? Who really benefits from this exclusion? Who do these laws really protect? The dogs? The children? The owners? The parents? Are individuals willing to surrender authority rather than act like responsible adults? Or do local governments just want to avoid lawsuits?
I certainly appreciate the hard-fought battle that resulted in the creation of dog parks. Most public parks historically allowed dogs on leashes to accompany their families, but that was the extent of shared canine activity. Then, a few decades ago, dedicated dog lovers across the country began to petition local governments for areas within parks where dogs could play off-leash, in effect replicating the play of children. They could socialize (sniff), run and chase (no dominance mounting), bring their own toys to share (or not), and be watched over by their doting parents (owners). Dogs could still walk with their human families in the rest of the park, and children could be attentive to their pets in the allotted dog zones. How could it seem like anything other than a win/win for both species, so interconnected?
But times have changed, and, in this instance, I have to wonder if for the better. Across the board, we’re seeing and experiencing great social and political rifts that create artificial barriers. What we all take for granted – something as innocent as the bond between children and pets – has become a football tossed back and forth among influential forces that cause us to change our habits, adjust our attitudes, rethink our values, realign our voting power, and redefine our lifestyles.
I’m all for progress, especially when it positively impacts society, politics, the economy, health, and education. However, when these forces intercept the American Dream, undermining something as innocuous as the family pet, it’s time to stop allowing ourselves to be mindlessly swept along (think herd mentality) and question these self-imposed authorities carving out an unfamiliar and uncomfortable reality.
So I must attempt to analyze just what has twisted the human/domestic animal bond, ungluing the sticky-strong love affair between children and dogs. How has this alienation taken place? Is it perceived or is it real? Is it justifiable or merely a paper tiger waiting to be unmasked? Why have we begun to create a world of suspicion and mistrust where friendship and partnership were never denied and always relied on?
First, let me draw a picture of that deep, natural, inherent bond between a human child and a dog. Let me tell you about my own happy childhood experience with my family’s second dog. (I’ll reserve a tale about my first dog for another column.)
My dad always loved Collies from the time in his youth when he briefly cared for one before she went to live on a farm. From his perspective, the only breed for a young family was a Collie. My parents located a Collie breeder on the outskirts of Chicago. She was relatively new to the breed, but she had an eye for superb type, chose her stock carefully, and contributed greatly with her champion line. Luckily for us, she had a litter available, and the puppies were ready to go to their new homes. I remember her incredible country property replete with horses, Scotties, and Collies. As we drove down the long entrance road to the kennel area, a magnificent sable and white male stood guard on the roof of a doghouse.
The breeder suggested that I choose my puppy. She and my parents stood to one side, and there I was in a Collie paradise of wiggles and waggles, one puppy after another attempting to climb up to my shoulders and plant delicious wet kisses on my face. One male in particular kept pushing the other puppies away with a butt tilt or a hip thrust. He wanted to be front and center. He wanted to be mine. I knew he was the one. I got the message right away. Merrie Oaks Bruce became my brother before my human brother was born a couple of years later.
I was five – a responsible five – if I say so myself. I gladly performed all the duties dog ownership demanded. I fed Bruce; if he didn’t want to eat from his bowl, I spoon-fed him. I walked Bruce; once he systematically unraveled the pink wool carpet at the side of my bed, ate it, and left long strands trailing behind…from his behind. On that memorable walk, my mother had to help him and me out! I adored Bruce; I’d get mad at anyone who would look at my Collie and call out “Lassie!” No, he was Bruce and that was better than Lassie, as far as I was concerned.
When my human brother came along, Bruce accepted him into the fold as another little lamb to watch over and keep in line. And when my brother was ready to take his first steps, he did so by crawling over to Bruce, standing upright when Bruce stood up, and put one little foot in front of the other while clutching Bruce’s sumptuous tail. The Collie knew just at what tempo and pace to move.
Bruce figured indelibly in our adventures and misadventures. He guarded our home and also vacationed with us. He went to the beach with us and shared sand fleas and tarry toes. He fielded our baseballs although sometimes he’d just show us where they landed. He sat in the back of the station wagon like a faithful guide when our mom took us to school and also scared the pants off us when he twice jumped out of our convertible in the middle of traffic. He was with us when we moved across country and, three houses later, when we lost everything in a huge canyon fire. He was there to lick away tears, and he was there to make us laugh. He was there to cheer us up when we were sick, and we were with him at the end when he became sick for the first and only time of his life. He was both noble and our court jester. He loved us separately yet equally. He taught us responsibility and empathy, devotion and loyalty, patience and discipline.
You can read about life lessons from books, and you can experience them with your family and friends – but not in the same way you figure things out in the company of your dog. That deep, pure relationship is real-time practice for who you want to be and how you’re going to act and react. Your dog is a mirror; he reflects back to you what you should see about yourself. Children become better adults and better citizens when they grow up with dogs.
That’s what nature intended or how nature evolved quite satisfactorily through our two species’ cooperative development. Yet over the last few decades, an unnatural shift has occurred, eroding this millennia-old bond. Exactly what has happened? For one, the dreaded A word – allergies. For another, the dreaded double B word – bad breeding. And to round out this increasingly popular trifecta of negativity, the dreaded P word – politics.
Allergies:
Maybe changes in the environment – pollution, cleaning agents, preservatives – had something to do with it. Maybe changes in parenting – dare I say neurotic hoverers or those who consider parenting a profession – had something to do with it. Maybe it seemed to be something in the genes – inherited predispositions or triggers. The end result was a monumental myth that sprang up, indicting early exposure to pets as a direct cause of childhood allergies. Often a couple’s dry run at parenting before the birth of a child, family pets got blamed by pediatricians and allergists alike, were sent off to shelters or rescues, or given to a neighbor or childless friend after young children exhibited tell-tale symptoms.
Now, new studies have proven the flaw in this canine and feline finger pointing. One such study, conducted at the Allergy-Immunology Section of the Medical College of Georgia, presents unassailable evidence that children who grow up with pets reduce their risk by 50% or more of developing asthma and common allergies (e.g., dust mites, grasses, ragweed, air-borne fungus, cat and dog). In fact, the odds increase favorably for children exposed to multiple pets. When children live with dogs, the human immune system actually regulates a response that is different from reacting to a foreign presence or releasing histamine. These days, conscientious parents can ask questions before accepting quick diagnoses and think of other possible solutions that keep the family unit, including the family pet, together.
Bad breeding:
Fickle American consumers actually do suffer from a disease relating to dogs; it’s called gotta-have-it-itis. A type of dog catches the eye – or a best friend shows up with one – or it’s seen in a blockbuster movie – or it dangles on the arm of a celebrity. The dog could be a rare breed new to this country – or a old breed suddenly popular – or a breed so ugly it’s cute – or a dog with such strong instincts that it seems to possess super powers.
You want a dog that will savage an intruder? For a while the trend was toward Dobermans, then Rottweilers, now Pit Bulls. Pick yours up outside the nearest mini-mart. You want a dog that will be happy in the crook of your arm or the warmth of your lap? Get a teacup version of an already tiny Yorkie or a Chihuahua, available in the back of a boutique. You want a designer breed (in any other era called a mix)? Instead of something ending with a -Poo, now it ends with a -Doodle, found all over the Internet.
These breeds become the trend of the moment, and people who have no business breeding dogs see dollar signs instead of living creatures. Since no agency protects or monitors reputable or unscrupulous breeders – not to the same extent as one as vast as the US Department of Agriculture or as specific as a local Better Business Bureau, both hobbyists and profiteers fall through the cracks, sidestepping animal husbandry regulation and commercial law.
So what happens to the naïve family who impulsively purchases a flavor of the month dog from a pet store or a backyard breeder or someone standing near the supermarket with a cardboard box full of puppies too young to be taken from their mother? Do the children of this family have their experience of puppy paradise? Do they share secrets and playtime and adventures with their four-footed fad? Do they get to learn the important lessons of life through their special relationship with their dog? Do they feel the depth of that unique bond with this animal?
If they luck out, then possibly yes. But here is what’s more likely to happen when dogs are bred for profit and with no attention to genetic predispositions or temperament issues: The Dobie bought to protect the home turns out to be a fear biter, erratically going after the family children and their friends, leading to mistrust and law suits. The Rottie bought to guard the children is so hobbled by severe hip dysplasia that play much less potty in the right place is impossible, leading to surgery or perhaps euthanasia. The Pit, once considered the all-American pet dog (think Petey in “Our Gang”), now has jaws with such shark-like crunchability that it can’t tell the difference between a recreational bone and children’s arms… or faces…. The adorable little Yorkie that should have loved going for rides in the children’s wagon is a submissive pee-er and would rather hide under the children’s bed. The Chihuahua who should be able to go everywhere with the children is a non-stop yapper whose voice makes conversation impossible and whose presence becomes a total nuisance. And the Doodle, with the supposedly non-allergenic coat, is himself a hotbed of allergies, unable to tolerate everything from fleas and food to trees and grasses.
Under better circumstances (with the right breeder or rescue) and with greater knowledge (families must do research), most breeds can be wonderful pets. Most breeds are child-friendly. Some are not and never will be. Savvy consumers take the time to be educated, bypass trendiness, and get the right family pet from the right source.
Politics:
Further eroding the innocent bond between children and pets is a morass of artificially politicized issues. The politics of animal rights has become wedded with political party platforms, economics, and commerce regulation, focusing on such matters as reproductive rights (mandatory spay/neuter), the number of pets a family or a kennel business can own, where pets can and can’t be sold, etc. Similarly, the politics over pet ownership has affected the politics of family structure, forcing people to redefine not only the nominal description but also the familial quality of their relationships with their pets. Political correctness has cast a pall over a natural association that has existed successfully for millennia.
How did we get in the position of having to fight for or against the existence of family pets? Because that is at the core of the political debate. Why are we bothering our legislators with pet reproduction at all? If we’re worried about families, let’s demand that our legislators get back to the real issues of education, health care, jobs and the economy so we can have that American Dream again. If we care about conditions at factory farms and puppy mills, let’s focus on those industries and provide incentives for humane treatment as well as clamping down on the ability to profit from sick animals. If we are seriously concerned with the number of pets in animal shelters, then let’s get to the real issue of responsible pet ownership.
And here’s the other political twist, exploiting the changing definition of family in units never quite seen before and in increasing numbers. We still have traditional co-parented families, but we also have single-parented families. We have families with human children, and now we have families where pets assume the role of children. We also argue whether or not we own pets or steward them or parent them. Are they our animal companions or legal dependents? Do we think of ourselves as their mistress and master or mommy and daddy, sister or brother?
Where are we headed with this unnecessary divisiveness? We already have rescue groups that refuse to place pets in homes with children younger than their teen years. So much for the notion of growing up with a pet. Instead, the pet becomes the replacement child for empty nester-parents. Is the issue with the dogs or with the children? On one hand, rescues often deal with badly bred dogs who need special attention. So placing a known fear biter in a home with young children is a lawsuit waiting to happen – especially, when children don’t understand that playing with their new dog may be a red flag for abuse and an invitation for a bite. Conversely, parents must be responsible and instill responsibility in their children. Some children simply don’t know when to stop (or don’t want to stop), and the line between cooperative play and dominance or endless teasing blurs, and again the dog must defend itself.
Will a family soon choose between human and animal children? What kind of society producing what kind of citizenry will we then have? Who will have the right to choose? Who will have the right to breed one kind of child or the other? Is this segregation what we can expect in a world revised by extremists? Parks where children may play but dogs are banned? Parks where dogs may play but children are banned?
Let’s get back to basic facts of life. Societies are founded on successful biological imperatives. A species lives longer when its members cooperate with one another, and often with greater quality when they cooperate with other species. Just read the totally engrossing book, made for each other: The Biology of the Human-Animal Bond by Meg Daley Olmert, to understand how a single hormone – oxytocin – not only sets up innate responses that dictate birth and maternal bonding but also generates deep social bonding within and between species.
The best example is the synergistic relationship between humans and dogs, which has benefited both participants across all cultures and climes. The sweetest, most meaningful expression of that relationship is the bond between a child and puppy. Take that away, and how we define and express our precious humanity may be transformed forever. If we must redefine anything, let it be a new expression of responsibility and common sense. Children and dogs belong together. Period.
