[MR] Yup, we're still talkin' 'bout pooches...

[Tank Mark D]

After nearly 50 posts, the same questions continue: Who should be responsible for controlling a dogs behavior? What documentation should be required? 

Let's turn the first question on it's head for a moment: Who should be responsible for controlling a HUMAN individual's behavior? First, of course, the individual. Please consider this scenario as well: You bring a non-SCAdian family member to an event, acting essentially as their "sponsor", intending to maximize their positive experience, while assisting them in avoiding any faux pas. Continue to consider your responsibility when said individual, following feast, gets "deep into his cups" and becomes unruly and a general nuisance. As his sponsor, you would likely feel responsible to redirect this behavior. If you failed to do so, it is also likely the autocrat would take action to deal with the behavior, up to and including expulsion from the grounds.

Turn back to the behavior of dogs: Why should the "sponsors" responsibility for the dog be any different? Why should people look the other way for an animal's behavior when they wouldn't put up with it from a human? In the case of an unruly animal that is causing general disturbance, the owner should be given a short but reasonable time to get his/her animal in line, or be asked to leave the premises immediately upon the expiration of that time period.

Draconian? Not at all. Basic good manners and consideration for the group's well-being should be the guideline. Yes, that could possibly mean the owner may not return to future events, but would that necessarily be a bad thing? Especially if they would have brought the same unruly animal. Additionally, how many others would, as a previous post indicated, not attend future events due to other people's "dog control issues". 

Finally, as to the documentation question: Mundane law should apply. No matter how much we may desire to remain period in our events, the Real World does intervene. If animals were to be allowed, the autocrat could simply state that owners need to have any available documentation "as required by applicable state laws". This puts the responsibility squarely in the dog owner's lap. Unless state law requires otherwise, the autocrat should not be expected to keep copies, any more than any public access area that allows dogs would be expected to have copies of everyone's documentation.

There's my two-pence...

Yours In Service,
Glynn-Haydn Murcheson-O'Shannon

This email is a natural, organic product. Any variations in spelling and grammar should not be considered flaws, but enhance the overall value of the item.