Great, first bikes are symbols of gentrification and now dogs. What's next, gardening? I blame the yippies!

Responsible pet owners would not "store" their dogs outside like equipment, especially in a cooler climate like western Oregon.

Dogs by their nature want to be part of a "pack." There are no "packs" in nature where this type of segregation can be witnessed. You don't keep your kids outside. This is poor treatment for the dog and could result in psychological problems down the road.

If you do not intend to take the best possible care of the dog, you shouldn't have one. If you're not committed to the idea that the dog is part of your family, you shouldn't have one.

It's okay to not want a dog to live or sleep inside your house, but if that's how you feel, you shouldn't own a dog.

I'm not here to advocate that dogs or cats should get better treatment than humans. I'm here to advocate the concept of responsible pet care, which means proper feeding, nutrition, care, grooming, training, exercise, and love for the animal. If you are unwilling or incapable of fulfilling an animal's every need then you are not meant to be a pet owner.

Guess what a$$#holes? I DO care about my dog more than your grandchildren.
And she's well behaved and on my property at all times.
Point 2 - A former slave state?!? Were any of these oppressed dog-seeing victims ever slaves?
Point 3 - I see more aggressive (pit bull) dogs owned by (African American) gang bangers than any others in my NoPo neighborhood. Yep - it's not PC but the truth rarely is.

Until I read that Sentinel article on their website last week, I had no idea it was an issue. I thought dogs were really just for lonely couples that are having reproductive issues, not a race thing. Relatedly, I almost hit a coyote with my car yesterday morning on the St. Johns Bridge on-ramp.

What lostinppdx said. Only MORE.

Martin can shut it.

"I thought dogs were really just for lonely couples that are having reproductive issues..."

That's a pretty damned ignorant statement.

That must be pretty insulting for the five dog-owning couples in Portland that happen to meet that characterization.

Dog licenses should cost $5,000.

Freshmaker how many dog owners do you think actually license their pets?

Umm... lostinpdx...western Oregon is not a "colder climate"... it's a very moderate climate and any medium or large dog can live quite comfortably outside if they have adequate shelter. That's what those big furry coats they have are for.

We have two dogs - when we're not home - they are outside. They have a dog house, a covered patio, and a variety of trees and bushes to hide under away from the heat of the sun or the rain and chill. When we're home, we often bring them inside - but not always - sometimes we just go out and play with them for a while, then go back inside. They usually go back out overnight unless it's very cold or very hot.

They are very well loved and very well taken care of. In fact - they have a big yard to run and play in all day long when we're at work - not stuck inside your home all day long trying not to pee on the floor and wishing they could chase that squirrel they see out the window.

Exactly, and something should be done about it. Dogs are too cheap and accessible in this country.

@Freshmaker: You talk about dogs like they're handguns.

There are some similarities.

IOW - 'the gov't should have more control over your life'

Society would be much better off with more dogs and less people.

D'oh! I don't particularly want to get into a back-and-forth with you, divebarwife. I would like to agree to disagree with you about whether or not western Oregon is a "cooler climate" (I did not use "colder," and I am very pedantic so I believe there is a difference). I have a lot of respect for you (I've read much of your blogging/commenting around the interwebs for some time now and I truly believe you're not an idiot). I know it's very tempting to do so when you disagree with somebody, but please don't talk down to me because I am the last person you will ever meet to deserve it.

Whether a dog can be kept outside depends on the breed (and coat) of the dog, whether or not the dog has psychological issues, whether or not the dog has other dogs in the immediate family, your neighborhood, whether or not you have a fence, etc. I don't dispute that you know your dogs better than I do and that you are intelligent enough to make an informed decision about providing the best care for your dogs. I don't feel that way about some >95% of the people I've known that have pets. I don't know why I get called out by a fellow member of the <5% of people that know how to care for their animals because I believe we're actually on the same team here and should instead be arguing with those that pet owners that take their responsibilities too casually.

The dog in my family gets to spend all day, every day with his stay-at-home mother and doesn't have to worry about about being stuck in our apartment all day long (we live directly across the street from a dog park). In the cases where we're both going to be gone all day, he gets to spend the day at Noah's Arf.

Generally speaking, if you have an only dog, you don't want to segregate him or her from their family when you're home. This can be psychologically damaging.

Also generally speaking, most people aren't willing to live up to the commitment required of them to take proper care of their pet(s). One way to resolve this to is take the approach offered by another commenter ($5000 licenses), which would certainly weed out those who are "unwilling or incapable" of caring for their pets. However, I don't believe that pets should be solely the playthings of the rich, so I'm sure there is a compromise somewhere in-between $5k and nothing.

"Dogs, especially big dogs that outdoorsy types like, are symbols of oppression."

Ahahaha, dog people sometimes bug me, but STFU. If Jewish people can somehow drag themselves out of their homes and past all the symbols of oppression, so can everybody else. Yeesh, get over yourselves.

good points lostinpdx - it sounds like we do agree...

As far as the actual story goes - I had no idea that this was an issue. Dogs pooping on other peoples lawns or barking at all hours I knew were issues - I never knew there were any potential racial implications. Learn something new every day!

'Dogs, especially big dogs that outdoorsy types like, are symbols of oppression. We all need to be more sensitive about the (historically grounded) feelings of the people whose neighborhoods we're moving into.'

OK, see - here's me being sensitive with my big dog. Feel better now?
Is there anything that doesn't oppress or offend your widdle feewings?

I used to petrified of dogs as I was chased and bitten by a German Shepard when I was a kid.

When I moved into the Sabin neighborhood in 1990, I had a dog. i have had a dog most all my adult life. Sometimes 2 dogs. My dogs walk on leashes, go on walks everyday, and often go to off leash parks. They are vaccinated and licensed.
This neighborhood had a lot more African Americans in it when I moved in, and it also had a whole lot of dogs living in the yards of African Americans tied up on short chains, spending their lives outside, on that short chain, barking and lunging neurotically as I walked by with my dogs on leash. I never saw one of them off their chains.
It was a neurotic bark fest of chained dogs no matter which direction I walked from my house, for blocks and blocks. As the neighborhood gentrified, the chained dogs went away. I can not think of one that lives permanently outside in this neighborhood. I know a few sad dogs in St Johns tho, living in white folks yards.
Anyway, I like seeing people walking their dogs on leashes before and after work around the neighborhood. Most dogs are super well behaved. Most are treated with more respect than all of those chained dogs from awhile back.

I just cant get into the "remember the civil rights" mode. I mean,as the elderly person with the Auschwitz tattoo said to me in the old people's home when I was visiting my mother." What? That? That was a long time ago. It is a new day. Look it is sunny and the flowers are beautiful. There is a lot to be happy about."

MOVE PAST THE PAST AND LIVE IN THE PRESENT!.

I found this article sort of confusing. There just wasn't a lot of info.

I wanted to know what sort of dogs and what dog behavior is considered oppressive. Big/small dogs barking from inside fenced yards? Big/small dogs being walked on leashes and peeing on debree? Why do so many African-Americans have dogs if are considered by many African-Americans to be oppressive?

I think I'll go read the Sentinel.

This isn't about "dog ownership." It's about controlling your dog. My dog is no threat to anyone of any race -- he WILL follow strangers down the street, tail wagging -- but he's also under perfect voice command. He doesn't charge at people. This is a critical point. Off-leash dogs that charge at me, a white boy from Missouri, are scary. I can't imagine what it's like for African Americans whose parents, grandparents, et cetera, can tell tales of menacing dogs. And neither can you, fellow honkies.

Guffman makes a good point. If you're white, I bet you never have to wonder if a dog is aggressive towards you because of your race. Sorry Guffman, but you're also perfect example of why there is some animosity and misunderstanding in the community about dogs. Every dog owner thinks his dog is nice and friendly and that everyone else should love his dog as much as he does. But strangers don't know your dog and and most people don't want to be bothered by your dog, no matter how nice it is. Add into the equation the complexities of race and you see why this is actually an important discussion for neighbors to be having with each other.

Skinny,

You might note from my previous post that strangers who don't know my dog don't HAVE to know my dog. It's not a question of "nice" or "not nice." It's a question of control. My dog is under perfect control. He doesn't approach people who don't want him to approach. No one needs to get to know & love my dog involuntarily, much less be bothered by him. It simply doesn't get to that point.

Yes, this IS an important discussion for neighbors to have with one another. If however you are going after any kind of ban on pet dogs because of (imaginary) concerns by a subsection of the community, you're simply barking up a nonexistent tree.

okay. you just made my point.

How do people know your dog is under control? They don't know that. How does your dog know who does and who doesn't want him to approach? That may be something you assume he can do because you love our dog and you don't think your dog is a problem. But other people might think he's a problem simply because he's not on a leash and they don't know what to expect; maybe he follows them down the street, maybe he just stands there. I'm not saying ban dogs or even keep your dog on a leash. It's a free country and if you think people who are afraid of dogs should suck it up, that's fine. But if you want to meet your neighbors half-way (and I'm not saying you should have to get along with your neighbors, but it seems like you want to), you have to try to understand their concerns.

Skinny, I've made no points except my own.

I think I've made it plain that I'm trying, at least, to understand my African American neighbors' concerns. Understanding is a two-edged sword. The vicious-dog culture is NOT primarily a Caucasian/authoritarian culture at this point in our history, and anyone who is paying attention should understand that by now.

Personally, my own dog isn't off leash in public that often. When he is, he's heeling, or on sit-stay command, or easily placed in sit-stay if people are approaching. HE DOESN'T APPROACH STRANGERS, because I don't let him. (Didn't I say that already?)