If I Could Talk to the Animals
Click here to read the complete article
By Debra Vey Voda-Hamilton, Esq. Hamilton Law and Mediation
With all deference to Dr. Doolittle*, if we could talk to the animals at the center of a conflict they would give us some remarkably creative solutions. Dr. Doolittle sings, ‘If I could talk to the animals…what a lovely place the world would be.” Who better to solve a problem involving an animal than the non-human being at the center of the misunderstanding? If we watch their solution process, these animals choose to sustain life and relationship over utter destruction. They never fight just to prove a point. Doolittle sings about how he feels, “that’s a big step forward ….”
Humans, when confronted by conflict do not place a high value on retained relationship. It does not relate so acutely to their survival. We don’t value problem solving as much as we value proving a point. We prefer clear winners and losers. When was the last time you had a disagreement and when the dust settled you felt you had really won? In the heat of the moment, yes, you felt great. Later, win or lose, you always saw the unintended consequences.
This lack of sustained movement toward a more beneficial definition of survival in conflicts over animals would confound your pets. Unfortunately, they can’t talk and tell us they are flabbergasted by our inability to solve issues when they arise. The means to an end, in disagreements over animals, are left to their humans who argue based on emotion and principal, not, “what’s best for all.”** Therefore, the outcomes in these disagreements look very different than they would if the very smart animals were in charge. In human disagreements over an animal, sustaining self-selected solutions seems illusive at best and non-existent at worst.
If we could talk to the animals, they might say, as Doolittle sang, “People, why can’t you find a way to get along?” That is where alternative dispute resolution (ADR) comes into play. It can help people take that Doolittle-esque “big step forward” toward getting along. People who choose mediation as a method toward a solution to their problem do so to find the best outcome for all, including the animal.** Mediation does not escalate a disagreement nor encourage parties to participate in relationship-ending confrontations. That would be the (dis)advantage of litigation. When one party contacts a mediator to explore how they can help solve a disagreement with another, they are usually looking for a path toward a solution, relationship and sustained life.
The other party in the disagreement may feel a level of distrust in the mediator or the process because their adversary ‘got to’ the mediator first. They feel the mediator has already taken sides. This belief would be a great disservice to the party and the process.
Mediation is the only venue in which that other person is there to assist everyone. The mediator remains neutral and supports both sides. They reality check everyone’s view of the facts and solutions. Mediators help the parties handcraft a self-selected solution they can all abide by. A mediator never tells you what to do. The solution agreed to is sometimes one the parties in conflict never saw coming or thought they could achieve. All the parties leave feeling they have been heard and received justice. This leaves room to include relationship retention.
Courts are now more readily using mediation in matters over animals. The AKC has also explored this method over the last several years as a means of finding a self-selected solution to co-ownership disputes. People don’t realize they can choose to address a conflict, with the help of a neutral party, before it runs off the rails.
Mediation provides a safe and confidential space in which the parties can speak their mind. As a result, the participants feel heard, respected and understood for their view of the facts and can listen and appreciate an alternative view. People who wait or consciously ignore addressing a small problem may also believe that there is no desire to save the relationship. It is then that they engage in relationship-ending, expensive litigation or arbitration. Once they feel backed into a corner they want to come out fighting. Therefore, they need an attorney to protect them. They prefer to take the best of a bad solution offered rather than self-selecting a solution in mediation.
“If I could talk to the animals” there are three things to ask:
1) How did this problem get so big, so fast?
2) Can this relationship be saved?
3) Are they listening to their dog?
The answer to question one is easy; it didn’t get so big so fast. It grew steadily in the fertilized ground of ignoring the early signs of trouble. Participants give so many great reasons for letting conflict fester yet problems only grow if you choose to ignore them. The risk is real to your relationship and the dog.
Question two recognizes the deeper desire to retain a relationship often obscured in anger. The key to successfully saving a relationship is to engage early. Once one party stands fast, all the best efforts of the other party to initiate a conversation are for naught. A peaceful solution will elude them. Approaching a problem early, while holding blame and resentment at bay, will enable a solution-oriented discussion to be initiated and facilitated.
Finally, it is important for the parties to remember what they are arguing about and that the dog is listening. He/she still loves them both and knows they care about him/her. This important focus may foster a problem-solving mentality toward a solution. Keeping the welfare of the animal front and center for all to see will benefit everyone.
Being able to solve this problem on your own terms while retaining a relationship is the best of all worlds. And as the Doolittle song goes, “That’s a big step forward you’ll agree.”
Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=92953
Posted by ralbee
on Nov 17 2015. Filed under Current Articles, Editorial, Featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed
