BarkingDogs.net

The Misnomer of the Barking Dog Dispute - Law Enforcement Take Note

The barking epidemic continues on as it does, year after year, largely due to ignorance and confusion. And there is perhaps no greater contributor to that disarray than the widespread use of the phrase barking dog dispute.

The word dispute is a neutral term that implies that all the parties engaged in the interaction in question are part of a mutual struggle. The use of the word also suggests connotatively that everyone involved is equally to blame and, therefore, equally guilty. One has to wonder about the appropriateness of using that word to describe the relationship between someone who is keeping a barking dog in a residential area, and the people who are suffering as a result.

If someone robs your residence they don't call it a burglary dispute. If some villain burns your home to the ground they don't refer to it as an arson dispute. If a politician is shot down on the street they don't call it an assassination dispute. Why, then, when one person harms another by way of a barking dog does law enforcement insist on and persist in referring to the situation as a dispute?

If someone places a barking dog in a location where the noise causes harm to his neighbor, then, beyond question, that person is behaving irresponsibly and may, in fact, be doing so maliciously. That person is the perpetrator.

The people who are harmed by that irresponsible behavior are the victims.

That's how it is. There are victims and there are perpetrators, and there are barking dog crimes. However, the notion of a barking dog dispute is a fallacious concept that, when embraced by those in authority, serves only to perpetuate the chronic barking epidemic.

Go to New Animal Control.Org for more information about animal control reform.

This page is part of Section Eight:
the Cause section of barkingdogs.net