No dogs allowed

Regarding last Sunday's column, a reader writes:

I disagree with your opinion that the sister of the lady who does not allow dogs in her vacation cottage is being unreasonable to feel hurt that her pets are not allowed to visit with her. People who make blanket exclusions of other people's pets are the ones who are unreasonable. I can understand if R.B.'s sister had a couple of destructive, un-housebroken dogs who trashed the place, then she would naturally not want THOSE particular dogs there ...

But to just exclude ALL pets on principle is wrong. We do not know what her motivation is for having a "no pets" policy, but I suspect it is because she just finds it "inconvenient" to deal with the minor cleanup that pets sometimes require, or the potential risk of damage. But this is fundamentally faulty logic. Any guest brings with them the risk of damage or dirt, whether or not they have pets. Think about guests that have children (who jump on beds and break them, play ball inside the house, set things on fire accidentally, the list goes on), or those who bring friends over (another unknown quantity). The proper attitude toward guests with pets (especially family) is to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Or to have a general policy regarding damage and cleaning for any guest who uses the cottage - i.e. you leave the cottage in the exact condition you find it, regardless of who or what species stays there, and you are responsible for paying for any damage you (or your pets) incur. I am not some nutty animal-rights zealot, just an average pet owner who is fed up with the number of places I can't visit and people who are intolerant of my perfectly nice, clean, well-behaved dogs (much cleaner, nicer, and more well-behaved than most people's toddlers, I might add).

Emotionally, I can see her point; I'm sure any pet owner would. But I don't think this analysis is fundamentally correct. A few objections:

1. Toddlers don't shed. Say what you will about them, they do not shed.

2. For most people it would be far more hurtful to have your dog (or child) excluded as an individual than as a member of a group. "Oh, some dogs are fine--just not yours." Some dog owners would be fine with this--Milo has a flavor, and I don't expect everyone to like him. But a lot of folks would be hurt. It's usually better to have a blanket policy--this event is adults only, this potluck is just for the ladies, this bowling league is only folks from the church, the rehearsal dinner is family and wedding party only--than it is to have a few favored exceptions allowed in.

3. Prevention is better than treatment. I'm sure if you own a cottage you'll already have a policy about people paying for any damage they cause--but why wouldn't you want to minimize the likelihood of that awkward and time-consuming event?

4. Animals don't understand different manners in different places. You can tell a four-year-old that it's okay to jump on the bed at home but not at Aunt Sue's, and she'll more or less get it. You cannot tell a dog that he's allowed to sleep on the sofa or beg for scraps at home but not at Aunt Sue's.

5. Animals can be unpredictable in different environments. Change is almost inevitably going to alter an animal's behavior for the worse. Your dog won't get that he can't get on the sofa at Aunt Sue's, but he's pretty well likely to decide that he can chew on the laundry at Aunt Sue's, which he doesn't do at home.

A few other points--both pets (by which I mean dogs, really, as they're the only pets you take out of the house much) and kids are discriminated against in modern America, and it's a vicious cycle. You don't want screaming kids in Starbucks, but part of the reason they're screaming is because they don't know how to behave in public with adults because the only places they're welcome are Gymborees. No one--child or dog--learns manners in a vacuum, they need practice in different environments. And in America, they tend not to get it, which means they sometimes can't behave themselves in public, which is an excuse to ban them. I'd love to see us become more like the European countries I've been to, where calm and self-sufficient children and dogs are everywhere, including pubs, but that would take a cultural change from two directions at once and I'm not sure if we can manage it.

Another point is--if you have friends with dogs, and you don't mind dogs or their hair, do think about inviting the dogs along occasionally, if you're having something simple like a "let's get a pizza and watch 'Lost'" night. It does really mean a lot to us dog owners, and it ultimately will make for better-adjusted, better-behaved pets.

I'm going to open this up to comments with a few reservations--no hating on dogs or kids. No hating on parents or dog owners. No hating on people who don't have dogs or kids. We can disagree, but if we can't have a civilized discussion, I'll shut it down. Also, comments posted after sundown Friday won't appear until Sunday morning, probably on the late side after those four glasses of wine I'll be downing Saturday night.