The Vibe Shift Against Dogs

Who Wins in the Battle of Karens and Canines?

This week, an account on Twitter went viral for asserting that we “don’t hate Karens enough” because one very such woman attempted to enforce a law against dogs when a couple brought their emotional support dog on a no-dog trail.

I feel like a few years ago, people would have agreed with OP—and might have even gone a step further to find the “Karen” and ensure she never work again. But something has changed, especially since the pivotal year of 2020. People defended the “Karen,” and a community note appeared to assert that the ADA does not cover “emotional support dogs.”

It’s not that people don’t like dogs anymore, but the unwavering loyalty toward dogs (especially juxtaposed with a so-called Karen) has come to an end. People may still like dogs, but not all dogs, and certainly not all dog owners. A couple ignoring trail rules to bring an emotional support dog on their hike is no longer the default good guy.

The vibe shift against dogs is here—and it’s not just about dogs. It’s about society, families, and what constitutes “order.”

I’ve noticed this shift myself. I’ve never been a Dog Person, but I’ve always appreciated dogs from afar. I grew up with a dog I loved. I don’t want to own a dog, but if a friend has a dog I’m happy to interact with it. I think most dog owners are good people who follow the rules. But rules that relate to dogs—barring them from specific locations, or requiring leashes—exist for a reason. And society seems to be getting a bit collectively annoyed by the small but very visible group of dog owners who think these rules don’t apply to them.

Take, for example, something that I witnessed last year. I was at a playground with my older child, which was located next to a small green field meant for kids to play soccer. The entire playground (including the field) had a no-dogs rule. I’m not talking about a leash rule, but a strict rule against any and all dogs. The field was also pretty small, and there were other bigger parks nearby that allowed dogs. But somehow, multiple dog owners have shown up at this no-dog location, explicitly designed for children, and let their dogs run free without a leash. One owner in particular came in with a shredded pitbull that looked like it was three shots deep of The Substance, and played fetch with it by throwing a ball directly into the children’s playground structure.

Typically, there’s nothing parents (or any other law-abiding citizen who doesn’t want to be bitten) can do in a situation like this. Reddit is full of questions from worried parents or responsible dog owners asking how to defend against unleashed dogs. Some people will suggest carrying a gun at all times, but I feel like “bringing a loaded gun to the playground in case I need to shoot a dog” is a bit much. Other people will suggest calling 911, which feels like an overreaction—albeit a tamer overreaction than shooting someone, but still uncalled for. But calling the non-emergency line, or “writing your local representative” won’t do anything at all. And most parents don’t really want to confront a dog owner, especially one with an unleashed pitbull at their feet (I know it’s “the owner, not the breed,” but frankly, it doesn’t matter when an unleashed dog is barreling toward children at the park. I’m not like “hold up, first let me acknowledge this dog is the product of its owner,” while I’m in the process of being bitten.) So generally, when parents have found ourselves in the position of being near an unleashed dog in a location where it’s illegal, our only option is to kowtow to the law-breakers and leave, unintentionally reinforcing a twisted version of justice where whoever is more likely to maul the other gets dominion over the public space.