In Chapter 4, we discussed Mackayís notion that re-establishing a strong sense of community was essential for the future well-being of our society.¹ Mackay argued that our declining sense of social responsibility would respond to a more-community approach.

Now then, it just happens that dogs are great social facilitators. It was Mugford and MíComisky who first used the term social lubricant to describe the phenomenon of pets increasing social contacts between people.² It seems that dogs may be especially effective in reinforcing a sense of community in suburbia. Exercising their dogs is the only reason many people are out and about on foot. This gives them an opportunity to renew acquaintances in their neighbourhood and catch up on local news. Also, people who have never met before are encouraged to open up to other people by the reassuring presence of a pet dog. In a local park or on a suburban street, this kind of interaction is just what Mackay was advocating.¹

The possibilities of using the power of pets to help our society recover the values of community are exciting. However, there is a proviso to this exciting prospect: the dogs must be under control.

From time to time you see people carrying a hockey sticks when exercising their dogs. It might be that they are going to a local park for some hockey practice. It might be that they are fearful of being mugged. More likely, they are really bothered about the risk of being attacked by an uncontrolled dog.

Many dog owners, especially those with smaller or older dogs, donít take them for walks because of harassment (cartoon) by other dogs that are inadequately restrained. These people find little comfort in the shouted reassurances of an Alaskan Malamute (or Rottweiler, German Shepherd etc) owner standing in the dust behind the 45kg animal that is bearing down on them. The park for these people is a place of risk and stress, not relaxation and friendship. The recreational benefit of the park outing is so utterly compromised that they just donít go any more.

Equally, the owners of large, but leashed dogs, are prone to feel alarmed when approached by little dogs off-leash. There is always a possibility that the result will be a very big tangle. Often the person at fault, the owner of the unleashed dog, will be livid with indignation and rage at the outcome. Next time, the owner of the leashed dog may find it less stressful to stay at home.

The social lubrication effect of dogs is somewhat compromised in these circumstances.

The more our communities overcrowd, the greater will be the need for the kind of social facilitation Mackay refers to. Public open space will inevitably come under greater pressure as time goes by. But without effective restraint, increasing park and footpath use by people with dogs will inevitably cause more snarls, tangles and hassles. The opportunity for our public space and pets to give us a greater sense of community will be lost.

1. Mackay H. 1995. Where do our values spring from? community and ethics. Australian Association of Professional and Applied Ethics Conference (29 Sept 1995).

2. Mugford RA, M'Comisky. 1974. Some recent work on the psychotherapeutic value of cage birds with old people. In: Anderson RS, editor. Pet Animals and Society. London: British Small Animal Veterinary Association: 54-65.