It was the summer of 1996: the sun was high, the surf was up and me and my best friend, Fang, ruled the world. Young and reckless, we rejected polite society for a carefree existence – going where we wanted to go and doing what we wanted to do. No rules for us, Daddy-O.
We took long walks on the beach, running through the surf and pooing in the sand. We played fun tricks on our other best friend, Tony, tearing giant holes in his vintage velvet couch and rearranging the stuffing in crazy patterns on the floor. We ate from rubbish bins and drank from toilet bowls and at night we serenaded the neighbours: “bark, bark, bark – shut up Fang. Bark, bark, bark – Fang!”
Most dog owners love their pets – surely there’s no need to legally require them to spend time together?Credit: iStock
It was a time when people and their badly behaved pets were free to work it out for themselves and, like the fabled 1960s Summer of Love, our behaviour would never be allowed today. Pet ownership is now governed by a vast array of local laws and standards, with the latest escalation in the regulation of our lives a push in the ACT to not only ban the retractable leads that have become so popular for dog owners but even more controversially, to require dog owner to spend a minimum three hours with their pet each day.
The ACT has already broken valuable ground in recent years with its recognition of animals as “sentient beings”; vulnerable, like humans, to feelings of loneliness, boredom and depression. But critics call the new standards regulatory overkill, especially when there are gaping holes in support for the needs of us two-leggeds, particularly for people who suffer from mental illness, isolation and homelessness.
There is also the small problem, obvious to everyone, about how the three-hour standard would be policed because short of micro-chipping everybody before they leave the lost dog’s home, it’s hard to see how contact hours could be monitored.
Loading
But, for me, the standout feature of the laws is that instead of using fines to reduce neglect and abuse of our best buddies, those radicals in Canberra want to coax out dog owners’ best moral selves. The 18th century philosopher and original animal rights activist, Jeremy Bentham, argued that as moral beings, humans should recognise the capacity of sentient animals to suffer and exercise our moral duty to show them compassion and provide them with protection. He would have approved of the ACT laws that recognise our pets’ emotional pain and along with some Canberrans, would have likely called for the law to go further – regulating not just the time animals spend with their owners but the quality of that time too.
And that’s fair enough, when you consider that spending time with boring people, like my late and spectacularly dull Aunty Flo, can be as detrimental to your health as smoking 17 packets of cigarettes in an hour.
It’s heartening that we can pursue laws aiming for higher ideals than just protecting property or generating government income. Although, admittedly, this could get out of hand if pet ownership laws hit the compassionate heights of Hinduism or the Jainism religion, which advocates non-violence to all living beings and encourages copious amounts of path sweeping to avoid stepping on an ant.
