If you walk our streets and return home with clean shoes, you should spare a thought for Edward H. Lehner who has died at the age of 93.
You won't have heard of him but as a politician in New York, he promoted the city's "pooper-scooper" law. The idea that pet owners should pick up the mess their pets had left was opposed vehemently by, well, pet owners, but Mr Lehner persisted and change came. And from New York to the world.
In Australia, it's the law: "According to the Domestic Animals Act 1994, Section 24A, dog owners must pick up after their pets in public places. That's right. It's not just a common courtesy; it's the law," the company Whifti Walks says.
Whifti Walks does have a paw in this because it sells the bags into which the mess should be placed: "The Whifti Walks Poop Pod will store up to two medium size poops. To get maximum space/storage, you must let the air out of the bag before you tie it off," is its pitch.
But I'm sorry to say that some dog owners don't agree with the principle that they should clean up the mess their animal has created. Or rather, they might agree but not actually do it.
A friend in Canberra tells me of someone who pretends to pick up the mess by lifting a nearby stone, but then walking on. To people nearby, it seems as if the dog owner has done the decent thing, but the mess remains to foul your and my shoe.
I am proud to say that I have shouted at a dog owner in Melbourne whom I spotted walking away from the dirty scene of the crime.
I have also seen people pick up the bag but then drop it round the corner.
I often see people taking the dog for a walk in a public park. Even with use of the bag, can it be hygienic, let alone pleasant, for the children who play and the families who picnic there later? By the way, can there be a more deceptive euphemism than "taking the dog for a walk"?
I should say that I love dogs. My family once owned one - Pooch, the smartest mongrel on the planet. But Pooch knew her place which was outside, in the country where defecating was allowed.
But urban dogs - pets rather than working dogs - have become ubiquitous, even in apartments. They sometimes seem like a fashion item for the young. Are they, I wonder, baby substitutes as birth rates fall?
According to Animal Medicine Australia, "Dogs remain the most popular pet, with half of Australian households having at least one dog (49 per cent, up from 40 per cent in 2019 and in line with 48 per cent in 2022."
So we should respect the memory of Edward H. Lehner by scooping the poop. He defied the doggie-doo lobby and won.
HAVE YOUR SAY: If half of you have a dog, are half of you scooping the poop? And should dog owners have their dogs do their business in the owner's back yard? Cat litters so why not dog litters? Send your views to [email protected].
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- Britain's counter-terror police were investigating whether Iran was behind a suspected terror plot at a military airbase used by US bombers.
- Five men were arrested on suspicion of explosive and terrorism offences after armed police intercepted three vans travelling towards the military airfield Royal Air Force base Fairford in the west of England, in the early hours of Sunday.
- President Trump planned to discuss concerns over artificial intelligence with the chief executive of Anthropic. Some experts fear that AI could destroy all human life within the next 10 years.
The American president reaffirmed his opposition to slowing its development. Mr Trump also reiterated his belief that new regulations would enable China to outpace the US in AI advancement.
THEY SAID IT: "We haven't got a plan so nothing can go wrong!" - Spike Milligan.
YOU SAID IT: David wrote a thoughtful, elegant essay on how human nature foils the dreams of utopia which new technologies bring. "It is the reality of what happens when pristine technologies are let loose in a world still governed by human greed, shortsightedness, ambition and desire," he said.
You tended to agree.
Peter said (thoughtfully and elegantly): "In the 1950s, it was becoming clear that greater automation was on the way. The response was largely optimistic. There were predictions that, because of greater productivity, a worker could get a week's wage for working only 10 hours a week. What few people predicted was that the benefits would not go to the workers with greater productivity, or to the people who created the automation. They were all siphoned off by the very rich, parasites whose main contribution to society was to remove wealth from the economy."
Anita wrote: "An excellent essay and a pleasure to read, despite the disconcerting subject matter. I'm afraid it will be forever thus, because human beings seem pre-programmed for greed. Altruism exists but not in the numbers needed to make substantive change."
