| Author |
antipodi
Site Admin
Joined: 25 Jan 2006
Posts: 1148
Karma: +6 (6)
Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:43 pm
|
|
| Message |
 The problems of Owning a Pet
|
   |
|
The problems of Owning a Pet
Negatives of pet ownership
we argue that our society should encourage pet ownership because we benefit from having pets in urban areas. But it would be foolish to ignore the threats to pet ownership that are gaining potency as our cities and towns become more crowded. The main threat is a groundswell of negative public opinion, amplified by a willing media. More people are saying that the community price of pet ownership is too high.
If we want urban pet ownership to continue, we must find effective ways to manage this aspect of community life.
The time for doing nothing is long past, and if some people feel aggrieved by positive action, thatís too bad. Being all merciful [to pet owners] is counter productive Ö. ëmarket forcesí will introduce their own, less considered actions, if the reality of the present public opinion is not reflected.1
We now look at the negatives of pet ownership that we, as a society, need to address. We also considers who should do the job of balancing the positives and negatives of pet ownership.
A hidden problem
Because of urban animal problems, a large segment of the population is becoming hostile towards pets. Dogs, in particular, are posing a threat to neighbours and to general community welfare.
However many owners do not see pet problems in this community context. So when some people were asked about the disadvantages of owning pets, they came up with such reasons as:
* They tie you down.
* They cost money.
* Some people are allergic to fur.
* Pets may fail to live up to the ownerís expectations.
* Pets can become a heartache2
Clearly owners tend to focus on the personal aspects of their relationship with their pet. This explains why many owners are unwilling to accept any form of legal control. They consider their relationship with their pet to be a private affair.3
It would seem that neighbours tend to take the same view. The National People and Pets Survey found a mismatch between the number of people who were annoyed by dogs and the number of people who complained. Over half the people questioned were inconvenienced at some time by roaming dogs and over half were disturbed at some time by barking dogs. But over 80% of owners said neighbours never complain to them about their pets.4
Similarly, unless they are encouraged, neighbours are generally reluctant to lodge formal complaints with a local authority. In 1988, a Townsville Qld survey found only 11.7% of dog incidents described to the survey interviewers had been reported to the local council. This was despite the fact that over 90% of people surveyed were able to identify the local council as the body that should deal with complaints about dogs.5
So there are, in fact, two types of negative impacts:
* negative impacts of pets where the owner is the victim
The pet owner will be aware of the problem and will frequently seek professional assistance to remedy it. Solutions may be pet training, rehoming, or, perhaps, euthanasia.
* negative impacts of pets where the community is the victim
Often the owner will be unaware of the problem or not motivated to seek a solution. They may be offended that the pet has been found at fault, and even more offended if forced to find a solution. Neighbours reluctant to cause further discord tend not to complain to the owner or the local authority. To a large extent, these are hidden impacts.
How serious is this second category ie. the negative impacts on the community? Various studies have attempted to answer this question. We will look at some of these findings now.
Pet ownership problems as viewed by citizens
It has been estimated that Australian local authorities receive more than 1,000,000 complaints about dogs each year. Cat complaints are currently much lower.6
In a public opinion survey of over 400 suburban householders in Townsville in 1988, 76% of respondents said that dogs were a public nuisance in their neighbourhood.5 Although such statistics are frequently quoted, they have little bearing because they lack context. The same people would probably say cars were a nuisance, and yet most wouldnít consider being without them.
A better perspective can be obtained from assessment of relative nuisance.
A useful measure of the relative significance of pet stress can be found in the results of a Victorian household survey. By far the most common type of neighbourhood dispute was argument over the behaviour of neighboursí animals.7
Figures provided by the Bendigo Neighbourhood Mediation Centre ranked and weighted 52 animal-related disputes recorded in October 1988. Dog barking headed the list (50% of all animal-related disputes)7 A similar ranked list is available for New Zealand. (See: Relative proportions of animal-related disputes 7 and Relative proportions of animal-related complaints 
One of the reasons these sorts of lists are of interest is that they are so variable from one region to another. This suggests they must be quoted with some reservation. The rankings probably reflect peopleís views on council commitment to solving particular types of problems. These perceptions are likely to vary from authority area to authority area.
Muir commented at UAM3 in Canberra on the rapid rise in complaints received by his firm, Animal Control Services, in New Zealand.8 The firm handles 17,000 complaints each year, and complaints are rising at 6ñ20% per year. Are pet problems in New Zealand increasing at this rate? Muir thinks not. The rise probably has more to do with a developing culture of complaint, than with increased housing density or larger numbers of big, aggressive dogs in the suburbs.
In both lists of animal complaints presented here, cat-related incidents hardly rate a mention. This situation can be expected to change when cat legislation is passed in more jurisdictions. Then people will feel they have a right to complain about cats as well.6
Pet ownership problems as viewed by local government
While residents wrestle privately with pet problems, in the public arena local government tries to deal with the problems on a community scale.
In 1988, a statewide survey of local government in Queensland showed the dimensions of the dog management problem from the viewpoint of councillors.5 When asked to rank a range of municipal headaches, councils put dog management in second place after collection of rates. (See: Municipal management problems ranked by Queensland local government )5
One third of the Queensland councils judged dog management problems as serious or very serious.5
Urban councils were likely to judge dog management as a more serious problem than rural councils.5 It follows that as our populations become more urbanised, we must expect pet management problems to grow unless we take steps now.
Queensland councils identified attacks on people as the most serious problem caused by urban dogs.5 (See: Dog nuisance rating as ranked by 107 Queensland councils)
Councils surveyed were then asked their attitudes to five different dog management measures. (See: Acceptability of some dog management options to councils) Thirty-five percent favoured increasing registration fees to provide more management resources. Of these, one council in five thought fees should be increased by five times. One council in four was considering banning dogs in some areas.5
At the time of the Queensland study, dogs were clearly causing major problems for local government authorities in Queensland. We know of no other comprehensive studies on local government attitudes to pets. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the 1988 Queensland situation as reported here continues to this day in most municipalities throughout Australia and New Zealand.
1. Leather RL. 1994. Legislation for urban animal management: experience with formulation and implementation of Scoop Law. In: Paxton DW, editor. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the Third National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Canberra, 1994). Sydney: AVA: 7-21.
2. MacCallum Research Pty Ltd in association with H Mackay. 1992. A Study of Our Attitudes to Cat and Dog Ownership: Motivations and Benefits of Ownership: the Personal, Familial and Social Context. Melbourne: Petcare Information and Advisory Service.
3. MacCallum M. 1993. Owning pets in today's society. In: Paxton DW, editor. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the Second National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Penrith NSW, 1993). Sydney: AVA: 8-20.
4. McHarg M, Baldock C, Headey B, Robinson A. 1995. National People and Pets Survey. Urban Animal Management Coalition.
5. Murray RW. 1991. An Analysis of the Characteristics, Social Impact and Management of the Townsville Dog Population. MSc Thesis. Townsville: James Cook University.
6. Jennens GW. 1994. AMREX: an integrated system for companion animal management. In: Paxton DW, editor. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the Third National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Canberra, 1994). Sydney: AVA: 79-91.
7. Technisearch. 1990. Approaches to Pet Management for Local Government. Melbourne: Environment and Technology Policy Unit, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
8. Muir KJ. 1994. Animal control services in New Zealand. In: Paxton DW, editor. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the Third National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Canberra, 1994). Sydney: AVA: 69-78. Murray RW. 1984. Effective urban animal management. Australian Veterinary Practitioner 14: 177-179.
_________________
Antipodi
May one day man and Animals live together in harmony and peace
|
|
Search
