When I want the opinion of a narrow minded dog hating pseudo reporter Ms. Mallick, I’ll give you a call!

It would seem that mainstream reporters are no longer content  to bully the bully breed owners and have upped the ante to include ALL dog owners in their   attacks. Or at least that is the case with Heather Mallick of the Toronto Star.

In an opinion piece written and published to the paper’s web site on Monday Mallick goes on an all out attack against Toronto dog owners. The topic of discussion? The city’s plans to consider making all public parks leash free zones between 9 p.m and 9 a.m.

Apparently Mallick doesn’t agree with the plan, and she lets us know by denigrating Toronto dog owners, and poking fun at their relationship with their pets. (No I won’t provide you with a link to her drivel, but you can bet I will quote her ridiculous prose as I tear it apart!)

“Dog owners are going off-leash in Toronto — not the blameless beauteous dogs but their peculiar owners — and it must cease.

Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, in a spasm of selfishism, wants all 1,400 city parks opened to unleashed dogs from 9 at night to 9 in the morning. Those 54 designated off-leash parks we have now aren’t good enough, he says.”

Mallick starts off tame enough, but one also has a brief moments wonder just exactly what she means when she says “not the blameless, beauteous dogs but their peculiar owners-” Is she actually saying that those that own dogs are peculiar?

Mallick calls Minnon-Wong’s suggestion to open up parks to off leash dogs a “spasm of selfishism” as if he has made the suggestion for his own ends and not in the interest of Toronto dog owners. In fact she wants us to believe this so badly she has resorted to inventing words,  could someone please define “selfishism”my dictionary must be missing a page?

 “Minnan-Wong is hardly eloquent for a man who’s trying to be the Dr. King of the FurBaby movement. Such a massive swing from the rights of people with human children to the rights of people with offspring with body hair and twice the legs is a big cultural moment.”

At what point did this become a discussion of animal rights vs. children’s rights anywhere other than in the addled mind of Ms. Mallick? Is Mallick saying that those with dogs are entitled to less rights to park use than those with human children? Does she not realize that all citizens are afforded the SAME rights regardless of whether they choose human children or pets?

While we are on the subject is Mallick unaware that it isn’t really an either or sort of thing? Pet owners have children, and parents keep family pets. The right to public park use is a right afforded all citizens, not just those who choose to have human children.

“There are a number of vital issues involving what dogs do: bite and um, go to the bathroom. I see them doing so blithely and publicly on the way to work every morning, shameless creatures.”

Are you serious Ms. Mallick? Really? EVERY dog on the planet would run around randomly biting people if it were allowed off leash play time? The other, well, that’s a natural thing, all animals (including humans and LEASHED dogs) do it! The only issue I see here is enforcing stoop and scoop bylaws. Short of corking your pet while out walking there is nothing else you can do about the call of nature, it just comes naturally which is why we have stoop and scoop bylaws in the first place. Babies poop too we just have the foresight to diaper them. But hey, check out any public trash can and you are sure to find a used diaper or two, so babies clutter up our parks with their end product (no pun intended) as well. Guess in that way we are all “shameless creatures.”

“Only a huge campaign will persuade citizens to let their gamboling children be bitten to the bone by a random dog cut loose by a tattooed crazoid out for his . . . whatever he’s out for. Often the motivation to own a dog isn’t even rational. It’s born of some kind of unhealthy baby-substituting in the loneliest era humans have ever lived through.”

Yes that’s right Ms. Mallick,  ALL dog owners are “tattooed crazoids” with ulterior motives who really have no idea why they chose to own a dog! Although I must confess I don’t have a single tattoo yet, my decision to get a dog or three was made after some seriously rational consideration! (Mental Note to Self: Must book tattoo appointment or risk fail at meeting Heather Mallick’s “dog owner” stereotype!)

What drugs are you on Ms. Mallick?  I hear that people like to swallow things that skew reality past the point of no return! Seriously! You must be on drugs if you truly believe that every dog owner really wanted a child instead, or that they came to the conclusion that a dog would be good for them because they are incapable of rational thought.

I think quite rationally thank you, and I own multiple dogs, and oh…wait for it…I am also a parent!

“Does Minnan-Wong know he’s crossed a line? The next battle will be restaurants filled with Great Danes. Those dogs are big. They’ll need a place setting, not just scratching room under the table”

What line would that be Ms. Mallick? The one you have drawn in the sand because you dislike dogs? While I’m asking questions, how did we get from opening up parks to off leash dogs after hours to the great canine restaurant takeover?

No one is insisting that dogs be treated like humans, we are merely saying “wouldn’t it be nice to be able to throw the ball for Fido at the local park rather than traveling all over hell’s creation just to give your dog a good run?” Taking our dogs to dinner was not on the agenda! You are grasping at straws here!

“Jennifer Bee, a 29-year-old dog owner, told the Star, “Parents have the option to have their children play in the park, so we should have the option to let our dogs off-leash.” The equation of dogs with children is at the sorry heart of this dispute. She doesn’t realize that children are under constant surveillance. That’s why we call them children.”

No one but you is equating dogs with children. Owners who DO choose pets over having children have every right to do so, and those dog owners also have the right to use public parks.  By the way, EVERY responsible dog owner makes sure that their DOG is under “constant surveillance,” The same can not necessarily be said for the average child, I’ve seen plenty of unsupervised children of all ages in public parks. Sadly some parents are just as incompetent at child supervision as are some dog owners at dog supervision. Your argument doesn’t hold water!

“Children are kept clean and safe. If they aren’t, society steps in. Rules are what make us an organized society with clean footwear.”

I have yet to see society step in because a child needs a bath, fact is children can be just as dirty as dogs, and not everyone has clean footwear, although what that has to do with the argument I am really not sure!

Yes rules are what make society organized, and no one is talking about breaking any “rules” here, merely about changing a few. Just because a few anal thinkers such as yourself don’t agree doesn’t make those changes wrong.

Fact is that no self respecting caring parent has their young child in a public park after nine p.m. so really you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Fact is that if a parent chooses to take their young child to the park after nine p.m they would just have to get used to dealing with off leash dogs, it isn’t the end of the world! We have to put up with screaming bratty children with sticky hands and potentially dangerous toys such as balls and frisbees but you don’t hear us freaking out about it.

“Some people don’t have dogs that are well-trained,” Carlos Chen, father of a 4-year-old boy, told the Star. “They don’t actually have control over their dogs. You should at least be cognizant of other people using the park. Everyone should have the right to use it, but there should be spaces were everyone is comfortable.”

Give the man a cigar! How is it the only sensible statement in Ms. Mallick’s entire opinion piece originated from the lips of someone she interviewed? Responsible dog owners would be the first to agree with this man.

Not every person who owns a dog has complete control over their animal! That is where a little thing called responsible decision comes into the equation. People who can not control their pets shouldn’t have them off leash ANYWHERE!

Notice the man did not say “dog owners” should be cognizant of  other people using the park, he said “YOU” meaning EVERYONE parents AND dog owners alike! But Mallick is not done with us she goes on:

“He’s right. Also, he’s sane which cannot always be said of dog-owners (“dog mommies,” they call themselves) who now “walk for the cure” for canine cancer, who raise funds for pets who can’t afford veterinary surgery, who vote strategically for charity money for dog shelters, crowding out poor children with cleft palates. These are people who force their pets into chemotherapy, not something the animals signed up for, or can sign up for.”

Excuse me? Did I read that right? Ms. Mallick did you just question my sanity? Because I choose to own a dog? What gives you the right?

What if I do support animal causes? Is that not my right? I also support my local Children’s Hospital and Aide Society. I am pretty sure that takes care of my obligation to those poor children with cleft palates you spoke of.

I support dog shelters too, simply because EVERY life is precious, not just the life of a child., a lesson you would do well to learn.

As for your attack on pet owners who choose to fight their pet’s cancer rather than end their life, who are you to judge them and what the hell does their choice in veterinary care have to do with off leash dogs in city parks?

You may not like or choose to own a dog, and that is YOUR right. You might choose to have children, but that does not make you superior to those who choose to own dogs instead, it just makes you different.  People with children are not given more rights than people with dogs, and you are just going to have to accept the fact that dogs are a part of society, and learn to live with it.

I choose to own a dog, and that is MY right. If I choose to walk my dog off leash because it is legally allowable, then controlling that dog is my RESPONSIBILITY. I will thank you not to judge my sanity or lack thereof based on my decision to own a dog. If I feel the need for a psych evaluation I will see a qualified doctor. When I want the opinion of a narrow minded, dog hating, pseudo reporter Ms Mallick, I’ll give you a call!

Nuff Said!

Dogs RULE!

Everydogsmom

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “When I want the opinion of a narrow minded dog hating pseudo reporter Ms. Mallick, I’ll give you a call!

  1. Oh Sweet Jesus, is Barbara Kay calling out all her dog hating friends now ? that is insane and that’s only the drivel that you shared ! So, it’s crazy to want to be able to have your dog off leash in public parks between the hours of 9pm to 9am because people want to bring their children to a park ? And why, may I ask should people be even having young children out in a park in the middle of the night ? Very scary crap indeed. Once again I hate the attitude that if we are fighting for animal rights we are against helping children and people ! and uhmn last time I looked, what child was ever asked if they wanted chemotherapy or any form of cancer treatment ?! People often have fund raisers for treatment if their family cannot afford it and must go somewhere else to get treatment, where are the cries out then ? Why I wonder do people feel the need to say that because we are for helping animals that we MUST be in some strange way, against helping people ? I happen to volunteer for a Victim Services Organization, on top of doing occasional transports for rescues and donating to local resucues in my area when I can. I also donate to cancer research, and other charities, what the hell has this woman ever done or donated to, charities for people or otherwise ?!

    • Perhaps this is Mallick’s week for PMSing? She is clearly a “dog hater” and she extends that hatred to dog owners. Truth is as a group dog owners have probably done more for children’s charities than Mallick could ever imagine! Everyone I know who is involved in animal rescue is also involved in some way with children’s charities, which makes sense when you realize we advocate for those who can not advocate for themselves!

Comments are closed.