Dogs are not people. Not everybody has to like them.

This woman is busy with a new baby. Taking care of them requires intense physical and emotional energy.

Her husband isn't sufficiently cleaning up after the dog. That much is clear.

Tell me, why is this all her fault and none of his?

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Dogs are of course not equal to people, but that doesn't change the fact that we made dogs part of our families some odd thousand years ago when we domesticated them for companionship and sport. We took a pack animal and made it part of a pack of humans. You make that choice again when you adopt a dog, or marry into a dog. A well-trained, well-treated dog will recognize its place in the pack.

The issue I, and I think others take is that this woman doesn't see the dog as part of her family; she sees it as a "problem" as she so repeatedly states. Her biggest priority is ensuring the dog won't interfere with any of her husbands responsiblities, giving away through her own language that she doesn't consider the dog a responsiblity in and of itself.

A dog needs its family to thrive. Its obvious she doesn't pay much, if any attention to the dog, and doesn't let her children near it, so the dog isn't getting the social interaction it so badly needs as a pack animal. Whether that contributes to the dog's incontinence is very possible; whether it contributes to the dog's stress is undenable. Dog and many animal brains are more like human brains than many people think, and they feel fear, excitment and joy, and stress when separated from their pack. They do not feel jealousy, hate, or other "higher", frontal-lobe emotions.

I love dogs, and have five, but 15 is old, and certainly an owner who pays as much attention to his dog as this guy should have taken him to the vet a long time ago. I would not be surprised if the husband hasn't taken him to the vet yet because he knows it may be close to the dog's time, and that will be a choice he has to make alone, without his wife's emotional support. And that will be a painful day.

Maybe he's pondering some choices about his family on those long walks; I wouldn't be surprised if our next letter is from the husband wondering what he should do about the wife.

-- Robin

For a very sensitive answer. While I become impatient with people who accord their pets with all manner of anthrpomorphic perks and benefits, they ARE indeed companions, friends, and comforts when we need them, no matter what. I particularly was affected by your doggie "flachback" as it were, and hope that this somewhat selfish woman can dig deep and find some empathy not just for the dog, but for her husband as well. After all, he didn't suddenly spring an aging incontinent dog on her, this has been inevitable since she met him.

LW has a BABY, so whatever she does is excused and whatever she prefers must be granted, because having a baby is sooooo haaaarrrrrd. Thanks, anonymous, for reminding us all of this critical fact.

I'm still amazed reading the responses to LW's letter (and my own) that to animal lovers, anyone who supports her is a cruel, thoughtless human. Sorry I'm not so perfect. I don't see how not equating animals with people makes me an "zoophobic, insensitive fool" (I think it was). Or "dime a dozen." There are people who are pet people and people who aren't. Why are you so critical of people who just don't like to live with the mess? But it kind of illustrates my point that to some people, animals are more important that people. (yet you attack people who suggest that the reverse might be true).

Incredible. I didn't say that I went around kicking dogs in the head as I walked down the street, and if I'm in your house and you have a pet, that's your choice and I respect that the home belongs to you and your pet, so I can't expect things to be as clean and odor-free as a non-pet house. I choose to not have any in my house, and if I wound up married to someone who had a pet, I'd be bothered by issues like incontinence more than the person who initially chose to have the dog (probably could never go there at all). I still say that animals do not equal people, so get over it already. A woman who does not want to live in a house that smells of urine is not crazy or heartless. I don't care if it's one room or twenty, she's just not being unreasonable here.

The tone of LW's letter was not hostile towards the dog. She clearly feels guilty for not enjoying the smell of dog urine. That doesn't make her or any of us bad people. It also doesn't mean that she should treat the dog as if it's her own, or as if it's a member of the family. You people act like she wants to kill her mother-in-law. It sounds as if she has treated it just fine. But it's a dog, and it's really old, and it is probably time for it to be put down, but she doesn't know if she's wrong for disliking the mess or not. She didn't say that she beats it. She feels guilty for thinking that it should be euthanized because she's unsure of her motivation (and at 15 1/2, that's pretty much where things stand)

You talk about how animals need us. Well, one of those needs is that when the dogs become extremely sick and feeble, their humans do have to have the guts to take them in to the vet to be euthanized. That is humane, not evil.

I think that the arguments about what may or may not have been when they married are rather weak. There are children now, and that does change things. I mean, imagine that she's writing to say that her husband is always going out with friends when it was time to tend to the kids. Or if he was sleeping in when it was time to get them ready for school. Would you excuse him and villify her as a self-centered witch then? Or is that only true when his "excuse" is the pet? How can you say that she should view this dog as being as important as her kids? I hope none of you have kids. I hope that your kids don't have some kind of pet-related problems (bites, allergies, etc), b/c I'm not sure how well they'd fare with you. And it's the worst kind of hyperbole to suggest that she's want to get rid of her husbands or kids if they were sick. There is no comparison there. That's just stupid.

Why is she a bad person for thinking that the kids should be most important to her husband too? It doesn't sound as if she minded the extra time when they were childless, but she's left with some pretty big responsibilities on her own now that kids are in the family.

And again, I hope that these same people feel the same moral outrage when people are being mistreated, but somehow I think that they don't. Just look at all of the ill-will that they heap upon anyone who doesn't agree that animals are people.

As for shared responsibility, since she doesn't seem to mind dogs, maybe a dog who can run and play (and one who can live outdoors in a doghouse) would be a good addition to the family. Probably more fun than making cleaning up dog urine some kind of family event.