Hot Dogs On Ball Fields

Dear Dog Lady,
Spring has sprung, along with the annual clash between the Little Leagues and the dog owners for the rights to the city’s ball fields. The dog people have had their way for most of the year, but the warm weather means they will be challenged for the fields until the end of the local youth season.

It appears that the number of dog owners has increased over the last few years while the number of children has decreased. Is this an accurate observation and will it transfer into political power for the dog owners? Will there be a dog owners' voting block in some future election? Are dog owners more likely to vote Republican?

Harry, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Harry, the buck stops here. Your question goes right to the heart of the issues involving urban dog keepers and their dogs. To answer you, Dog Lady must turn into a political animal.

There is no easy solution. Dog Lady believes that dogs should always surrender the ball fields to the kids. Granted, dogs are like children to many doting dog guardians. But, let’s face it, dogs are not in the same league as Little Leaguers, even if a dog catches a high-fly tennis ball like an outfield pro.

When children are not playing on the fields, then dogs and their humans have rights to use the urban green spaces. It is only fair and equitable. But tax-paying dog owners who let their dogs romp on city ball fields must be vigilant about cleaning up after their animals as well as scrupulous about leaving the field as they found it.

Dog Lady cringes when she sees bad behavior on ball fields -- humans leaving behind their animals’ poop, or ignoring their digging dogs while divots fly. The use of a city park is a privilege. Each urban dog owner who uses public land must ensure that his or her dog does not ruin it for everybody else. Human responsibility translates into dog political power.

In Dog Lady’s city neighborhood, where dogs outnumber children by a wide margin, dogs have been banned from one ball field all year round. In the dead of winter, an Animal Control enforcement officer patrolled to keep the dogs off the frozen field -- a ridiculous use of Dog Lady’s tax dollars. Obviously, non-dog-owners have more clout with the neighborhood’s city councilor. Meanwhile, aimless teenagers in the neighborhood smashed floodlights near the field.

Nothing gets Dog Lady’s goat more than political duplicity. The city councilor who bans dogs from the ball field doesn’t speak out about the broken lights near the field, or the beer cans that litter the stands, or illegal double parking during a game, or the fact that the field is often used by adult ballplayers who live outside the city.

Dogs are pack animals while humans are PAC animals. Organized political action is effective. Dog owners have clout. They represent a prime-cut demographic. Certainly in a city where many residents are childless by choice or circumstance, dog keepers represent a huge voting constituency. The smart politician pays attention to the bark bloc; the dumb pol dismisses dog owners and their issues.

As for the party preference of dog voters, you’ve come to the wrong girl. On this matter, Dog Lady speaks only for herself: Call me a Whig or a Wag -- just don’t call me a Blue Dog Democrat.

Posted by Dog Lady at April 7, 2003 02:11 PM