A Dog’s Place
Go just about anywhere in Austin and you’re guaranteed to see a plethora of dogs; from the capital, to restaurants along South Congress, even alongside their owner’s desks in downtown office buildings. Austin is increasing in density, and with surges of population, increasing numbers of dogs are sure to follow. Studies have shown that dogs can provide immense benefits for both individuals and communities, and perhaps this prompted Austin to find ways to create public spaces for both people and pets. Austin has become a notoriously dog-friendly city, but how does it compare to other cities in terms of dog-centric policies, and how do these policies translate to real-life manifestations of multi-species public spaces in Austin?
Almost 40% of people in America own a dog (Cutt, Giles-Corti, Knuiman, & Burke, 2007). That’s a huge portion of our population co-existing with another species that completely rely on them for everything, but during this exchange humans are getting benefits we perhaps had no idea were occurring. Dog owners are found to be more active than non-dog owners, and those with pets are found to have a lower cardiovascular risk than the rest of the public, perhaps because people are more likely to exercise if they own a dog (Cutt, Giles-Corti, Knuiman, & Burke, 2007). The physical health of the individual would obviously increase when given responsibility of walking and exercising of a dog. But, when cities such as Austin become denser, taking a dog on a walk becomes even easier. People are more likely to walk in cities that are pedestrian-friendly, which not only improves their cardiovascular health, but inspires some to adopt pets once finding themselves with more opportunities to walk than they once had. Mentally, dogs have been found to reduce feelings of loneliness and help ease certain psychological conditions in individuals (Wood, Bosch, Bulsara, & Giles-Corti, 2007). Perhaps this is brought on by the fact that dogs somewhat force a person to go outside and interact with the environment and can prompt community integration in people who have long been isolated. In fact, dogs have far more impact on communities than most might consider. Pets often facilitate interactions between strangers, as many people are more likely to approach someone with a dog, or even start to recognize someone because of a certain dog. Having dogs and their owners walking the streets increases feelings of safety among residents, as they feel more comfortable seeing familiar faces around rather than having barren streets. Dog owners often form casual bonds with each other, exchanging information and forming a social contact with the other owner (Wood, Bosch, Bulsara, & Giles-Corti, 2007). In fact, dog parks are a mecca for the dog community. This is not only an area where a dog can freely exercise and interact with other dogs, but also a place where dog-owners form connections and social links with other dog-owners. Dog parks are perhaps the most overlooked, yet most essential, “dog-friendly” public places. They are public spaces that humans and animals can truly share, an example of what a multi-species urban environment can look like (Urbanik & Morgan, 2013). For the whole community, having dogs around brings a sense of safety, a sense of place and recognition, but mostly a strong sense of community. It’s for these reasons that public places are being modified to incorporate dogs into the framework of our own city.
Austin’s official policies regarding dogs is straightforward; an owner should pick up any feces left behind by their dog, an owner should keep any dangerous dog from being in public (a dog that has killed another animal/listed by a vet to be dangerous), and an owner should keep their dog on the leash unless in a designated off-leash park as listed on their website (2018). These provisions are standard in any city, but where Austin shines is when it comes to the number of amenities it offers past traditional city policies. Austin ranked 12 on a list of “Most Dog Friendly Cities in America” that got results by factoring in dog accessibility and quality of life. This list condensed a large range of factors such as the number of dog parks per residents, dog friendly restaurants, dog-friendly shopping centers, walkability (on a scale from 0–100), and average annual precipitation. Cities such as San Francisco (rank 1) and Las Vegas (rank 2) had almost triple the number of dog parks per resident than Austin did. However, we had one of the highest numbers of dog-friendly restaurants and shopping centers. But those numbers did not translate to us getting higher on the list since a greater weight was given to number of dog parks per population than were stores that allowed dogs. Further, the general walkability of Austin was on the low side in comparison to the cities that were ranked highest. Overall, Austin appears to have plenty of dog-friendly restaurants and shopping centers but falls short in areas that hold the greatest benefit for both people and pets; too few dog parks within the city (currently 1.36 per 100,000 residents), and a low overall walkability (“Most Dog-Friendly”, 2017). However, these are not the only dog-centric amenities offered in Austin. Any quick Linked-in search will produce hundreds of job results in the city that are dog friendly. This means that these jobs allow you to bring your dog along with you to the office or whatever set-up you commit to as your daily workspace, which in turn encourages employees to work longer hours, improves morale, and strengthens connections between employees. For employers, having these policies not only attracts new hires, but also helps to retain employees that aren’t willing to give that benefit up for a higher paying job (Abrams, 2017). Allowing dogs in the workplace has also been found to improve individual performance and overall mood, which may manifest as lower rates of absenteeism and higher workplace morale and productivity (Foreman, Glenn, Meade, & Wirth, 2017). With so many ways available to incorporate a dog into your daily life in Austin, it seems like the idyllic place for both owner and pet. But perhaps the most important question has yet to be answered. While the concept of a dog friendly restaurant or shopping center may sound great, true experience remains a more vital determinant of the integration of people and pets when analyzing success of such public places.
The trouble with determining how and if a city should incorporate dogs into the public sphere is that there is widespread uncertainty as to how to accept their mere existence as non-humans in public. Dogs are widely thought of as being private property, and therefore their existence in the public sphere only makes sense through their connection to a human owner and is a privilege. We often give dogs spaces to exist in public, however we also restrict their dog-like behaviors in these spaces, making them areas for dogs to exist as we deem acceptable as humans (Instone & Sweeney, 2014). The question then becomes, are these spaces acceptable for both people and pet, or are there certain “dog-friendly” areas that aren’t as dog-friendly as advertised?
My dog, Finn, loves going to the dog park. I’ve learned that he’s happiest and healthiest when he has time to run freely and interact with other dogs in this fenced-in, off-leash area. Since he’s such a high-energy dog, I’ve become reliant on West Austin Park as a form of exercise for him nearly daily. Here is a place that is fenced off, well maintained, and where Finn can run freely while I can talk to other dog owners and find my own sense of community through them. Dog parks truly allow a dog to “just be a dog”, if owners clean up after them and remain aware of their demeanors. Austin currently has 12 off-leash dog parks like this one; however only two are fenced-in. While we could obviously use additional dog parks, I know that for Finn, having a dog park that is fenced-in is a must. So, I think that Austin should invest more resources into providing specifically fenced-in areas. Dog-parks provide such an essential resource for dogs, dog-owners, and the entire community; and fenced-in dog parks are incredibly important to countless dog owners for safety reasons and for peace of mind. Dogs that can run more freely are happier dogs, and owners that aren’t worried about their dogs getting to a road are happier owners. Further investment in Dog Parks is a must, because there are numerous barriers within them, such as E. coli and other viral infections, that can lead to these areas being closed, or possibly being enforced by a fine. Having free, accessible, and safe dog parks around Austin is something that should be of utmost importance when assessing what kind of public amenities should be made available for dogs.
Next up was my quest to explore some of Austin’s dog-friendly restaurants. A major complaint people have towards allowing dogs in outside portions of cafés is that they are unruly and unhygienic. But with generally healthy dogs (and even with a sick dog), the health risk is extremely low, and most dogs are well behaved enough to not cause chaotic scenes (Pletcher, 2015). Austin has a daunting number of dog-friendly restaurants, so to help narrow down my choices, I turned to avid “dog-bloggers” in Austin that have curated lists of their top tens of places owners and dogs must do in Austin (Burkert, 2014). Finn and I decided to visit South Congress to see if a walk along South Congress truly does allow “The Keep Austin Weird mentality [to seep] through the sidewalk cracks”, as so eloquently stated by “gopetfreindly.com”, especially when in tow with a large animal. To put it bluntly; it does not. The sidewalks, and all their cracks, were an appropriate size to accommodate two lanes of human traffic; but add a dog into the equation (especially one who occasionally disrupts the flow when seeing something he deems exciting), and it becomes remarkably less so. The high volume of people here also meant that the restaurants tend to squish as many tables as they possibly can into the spaces available. Which was not ideal for my 55-pound Australian Shepherd who could not simply sit at a chair. It was cramped, Finn was confused as to why he couldn’t keep interacting with the passerby’s (who passed by about 6 inches away from where we sat), and I spent most of the meal worried about making sure he took up as little space as possible. The idea of taking your dog to a restaurant sounds great in theory, but when you’re so preoccupied with making sure said dog is being the best and smallest he could possibly be, it’s not actually fun at all, and I’m certain Finn would have enjoyed himself quite a bit more if he were running about freely rather than being cramped up next to a bunch of food he couldn’t eat.
Last on my list was a dog-friendly shopping center; The Domain. This was the concept that confused me the most. Why would you bring your dog somewhere where you could walk outside of the stores you wanted to shop in, but not actually go inside with him? I was never one for window shopping, and window shopping accompanied by a 30-minute drive seemed even less appealing. Nevertheless, we traveled across town to the intimidating high-end shopping center, and the experience was far more bearable than our previous one. The sidewalks were much bigger, and (relatively) fewer crowds allowed for walking that was more enjoyable than the skilled weaving through hordes of people on South Congress. Dog bowls filled with water were laid out in front of some stores, and certain shopkeepers even let Finn come in and browse around. The layout of the shopping center was so large that there was no need to cram things together as much, and so restaurants were able to have more space in their outdoor seating, which allowed for a much less stressful experience when dining with an animal. Overall, the increased amount of area The Domain allowed it to be less stressful for me as an owner and gave Finn some more room to breathe when walking around and again when he had access to water bowls and room to sit at the restaurant.
However, determining if this was truly a public space for both people and pets is difficult to do. While he had more room to exist, was he truly enjoying himself? I see Finn at the dog park, and that is a dog who is enjoying himself in a public space, a dog allowed to run freely. But, when trying to create spaces such as these dog-friendly restaurants and shopping centers, a more apt name may be “dog owner friendly”. Just as the people who have performance boosts because they are less stressed when they get to bring their dogs to the office, I feel as if these places are catered to maximizing the comfort of the owner and ignore how the dog is impacted. It would be interesting to do studies into creation of public spaces that function more like dog parks and less like dog-friendly restaurants, but maybe sticking with what already works is what’s best. Perhaps what we need to do is focus less on campaigns for dog-friendly hotels, restaurants, bars, etc.; and more on funding additional healthy dog parks around Austin, places that we know positively impact dogs, owners, and the community.
References
Abrams, R. (2017, June 21). Dogs in the workplace: Good for you, your employees, your bottom line. Retrieved January 30, 2018, from https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/abrams/2017/06/21/dogs-workplace-good-you-your-employees-your-bottom-line/414653001/
Animal Protection Ordinances. (2018). Retrieved January 30, 2018, from https://www.austintexas.gov/department/animal-protection-ordinances
Burkert, A. (2014, February 24). Austin’s Top Ten Dog Friendly Things to Do. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://blog.gopetfriendly.com/austins-top-ten-dog-friendly-things-to-do/
Cutt, H., Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M., & Burke, V. (2007). Dog ownership, health and physical activity: A critical review of the literature. Health & Place, 13(1), 261–272. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2006.01.003
Foreman, A., Glenn, M., Meade, B., & Wirth, O. (2017). Dogs in the Workplace: A Review of the Benefits and Potential Challenges. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(12), 498. doi:10.3390/ijerph14050498
Instone, L., & Sweeney, J. (2014). The trouble with dogs: ‘animaling’ public space in the Australian city. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 28(6), 774–786. doi:10.1080/10304312.2014.966404
Pletcher, P. (2015, June 16). Are Dogs Really a Restaurant Health Risk? Retrieved February 17, 2018, from https://www.healthline.com/health/pet-health/dogs-restaurant-health-risk#2
The Most Dog-Friendly Cities in America. (2017, February 17). Retrieved January 30, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-most-dog-friendly-cities-in-america_us_58a734d1e4b026a89a7a2a32
Urbanik, J., & Morgan, M. (2013). A tale of tails: The place of dog parks in the urban imaginary. Elsevier, 44, 292–302. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.08.001
Wood, L., Bosch, D., Bulsara, M., & Giles-Corti, B. (2007). More Than a Furry Companion: The Ripple Effect of Companion Animals on Neighborhood Interactions and Sense of Community. Society & Animals, 15(1), 43–56. doi:10.1163/156853007x16933
