EVERYDAY ETHICS: Dogs off leash; buying a job

Posted @ Jan. 14 2012 12:06PM by Susan - viewpoints

By Rick Pope
1. Our town has a “leash law” prohibiting dogs from running loose and requiring owners to have dogs under their control. While walking around the path at a popular local park, I often encounter people with dogs 6-15 feet away on leashes loosely dragging behind the dog instead of held by the owners. Dog owners think THEIR dog would never bark, bite, charge, ignore their voice command, etc., but in certain unexpected emergencies, I doubt they could react in time or outrun the dog to pick up the leash. I was bitten by a dog once and am still intimidated; I think ALL dogs potentially dangerous. What do you think?

You are describing a three-party conflict whose participants are yourself, eccentric dog owners, and non-vicious dogs. I would like to see this park. There is something about dogs that brings out the eccentric in all of us, not just the British.
Your question reminds me that once my wife and I went to a wedding in Boston and we took the opportunity to tour Harvard. A young student was running through Harvard Yard with her leashed dog, except just as you describe it she was not attached to the leash — only the dog was. Several people remonstrated her; she just kept running and said, “Thank you.” I confess I was amused. So was my wife, which is not always the case.
It is important that dogs in the city behave within appropriate doggy limits and that they are under reasonable, not necessarily perfect, voice or leash control. If they are, they ought to have as much right to use the park as you or I, in my opinion. A dog always on a leash is like a child always on a tether--unable to run, jump, play, chase squirrels, experience joy, obtain proper exercise or be free. Almost as importantly, such a well-behaved dog’s responsible owner cannot experience all these things vicariously through the dog they adore.
I regret you were traumatized. On the other hand, I also regret the rise of the “dog fraidy cat” in the baby boomer and younger set. I love to see parents teaching their young children in the park to meet the nice dog instead of hide from it. These childlren are learning valuable lessons in self-confidence that will serve them well.
If I were king I would designate part of every big park only for people and their dogs, part only for people without dogs, and part for mixing. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go. Come on Zoey! Let’s go for a walk!

2. To her great disappointment, a semi-retired woman lost her part-time job writing articles for a small museum’s newsletter. Knowing how much she missed it, her brother contacted the museum director (without his sister’s knowledge) and asked to pay the museum, anonymously, to re-instate her. Something about this situation bothered me. What do you think?
It depends why the writer lost her job, the nature of the impact on her, and the brother’s methods. If the job cut were based at least in part on the museum director’s dissatisfaction with the sister’s performance, the brother’s efforts would be contemptible in our society, although not necessarily in others. If the pay were not important, the brother should keep his nose out of his sister’s business and let her work for the love of writing if that is what she wants to do. If the cut was solely budgetary and the income was important to the semi-retired sister, I can see the beginnings of a case. Even so, the brother, presumably well meaning, wants to buy control of some portion of the museum operation and of his sister’s life. He also wants to conceal his conduct. I suspect these are the ethical red flags that bother you. They bother me, too.
The brother is entitled to donate to the museum just like anyone else. The ethical rub in this situation comes from concealment.
Just exactly why doesn’t the brother want anyone to know about this arrangement? Are his motives really pure, or are they manipulative? How would everyone feel if the word got out? Would his sister be humiliated if both she and her friends learned that the job she thought she had based solely on merit was actually based on financial favoritism? Would the museum’s reputation suffer?
In this situation the brother really needs to tell his sister and obtain her permission.
If he doesn’t, even with the best of motives, “Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive.”
•••

Rick Pope is a Portland trial attorney with Kirklin, Thompson & Pope, LLC. He regularly represents plaintiffs as well as defendants, although not generally in the same case.