CYNOMANIA
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] Sta,—Some people love dogs and some do not. Mr. Vulliamy goes too far in calling mere dog-lovers " cynomaniacs ": we are all of us free to choose our own love-objects and play- things, and if some choose dogs, well and good. The rest of us should rejoice that the cynophiles have found something from which they can derive so much innocent pleasure. Proposals to abolish dogs, or to prevent people keeping them if they want to, are not only impracticable, but illiberal in intention, and as such they are to be most strenuously resisted. But at the same time the wishes and tastes of those who do not like dogs are equally deserving of consideration. The trouble at the present time is that dog-lovers, especially in suburban areas, are flagrantly abusing other people's good-natured tolerance of their pets.
To the dog-lover everything a dog does is sweet—this is a natural consequence of the blindness of love ; but there are others who feel a legitimate resentment at having to pick their way so carefully over the pavements, and at having to be so constantly prepared for aggressive yappings and demonstra- tions of " affection " from animals which they do not like. In some districts there are so many dogs that it is no longer possible to walk at ease about the streets, and the quiet enjoy- ment of parks and open spaces is utterly spoilt. By Rushmere on Wimbledon Common, for example, we ourselves find that our children cannot run ten yards after a ball without having a veritable pack of dogs at their heels ; and when I go out on the Common, to read a book on a summer afternoon, I
also am molested. What happens is that some wretched dog barks at me until it has distracted my attention, then it approaches and even paws at me, and, as likely as not, cocks its leg at the very tree-stump on which I am sitting. My sudden and vicious remarks disturb the dog-owner almost as much as the barking of the dog has disturbed me. There is a regrettable momentary breach of the peace, which does not matter, except that the innocent party—namely, the dog—is liable to get hurt. The much more serious side to the dog nuisance is that our children, who are not so careful as adults about avoiding the excrement in the streets, are constantly and inevitably bringing it into their bedrooms and playroom on the soles of their shoes. This is not happening only in our par- ticular home, but everywhere in the suburbs, and it can only be regarded with apprehension as a grave menace to the public health.
I deplore the tendency amongst your correspondents to evade the serious issues raised by Mr. Vulliamy and to side- track them with charming pleasantries about the relative virtues of Canis familiaris and Homo sapiens, or completely irrelevant assertions about the intelligence of sheep-dogs and the useful- ness of St. Bernards for rescue work on mountains. The fact remains that dogs have unfortunately retained many of the habits of the jackals and the wolves from which they are derived. They are camp-followers and scavengers that have learnt to fawn upon Man, but they have not become adapted, as have human beings, to life in urban environments. To keep them at all, in London, is a form of cruelty, and when so many sanitary precautions are necessary to avoid outbreaks of epidemic disease, the toleration of canine excrement in the streets is a barbaric anachronism.
Dog-owners, along with the rest of us, are subject to infec- tion by the pathogens which multiply on faecal matter, and if appeals to their decency and common sense are ineffective, restrictions will sooner or later have to be imposed on the freedom of dogs in towns. The present by-laws are evaded very simply by letting the dogs off their leads. I would sug- gest that dogs should not be allowed in the streets at all, except when on lead, and that the police and the general public should then bestir themselves to secure the conviction of dog- owners responsible for offences. As for the parks and open spaces, it is a very reasonable request that some parts should always be preserved free from dogs, for the enjoyment of those who do not care for their attentions.
That the practice of keeping dogs, altogether denied free exercise in the streets, would be even more cruel than it is at present cannot be disputed. But it should be for the dog- lovers—who are, after all, in the minority—and the various humane societies to discuss this aspect of the matter amongst themselves. If they happened to discover the difference between unselfish love of animals and the pleasures of keeping incarcerated pets, the canine population of our towns might undergo a very desirable reduction.—Yours faithfully, 8 Thornton Road, Wimbledon, S.W. 19.
E. C. LARGE.
Previous page
