8 ms·

Owning a Pet Is Good for Well-Being

62 points by whack 7y ago

Ididntdothis 7y ago
For a while I worked at a place where they allowed dogs in the office. It’s probably not for everyone it but I personally felt this have the workplace a very nice touch and made it much more humane.
- dudul 7y ago
  It is indeed not for everyone since I personally hated it :) I find it extremely distracting. When there is a dog around, you'll always find a bunch of people throwing the ball with it or something like that in the middle of the open space. And there is of course the dog owner who just doesn't care where the dog is. Doesn't care that it's coming to my desk to lick my shoes, or bothering me while I'm trying to eat in the kitchen. Purely based on empirical observations (so, it's worth what it's worth) I feel like dog owners automatically assume that everyone else loves dogs as much as they do. They care very little about people who are scared, allergic, disgusted, etc.
  - danbolt 7y ago
    I have dog allergies and work in a workplace that allows dogs. It's not terribly fun, and I feel like I'm fighting a politically-uphill battle to not be seen as the bad one while still having a decent space to work.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      It's ridiculous how many people have "service" animals nowadays. I don't care for the smell of animals, nor can I vet the training abilities of all animal owners, so I'd rather not deal with them at all. Somehow everyone has an emotional problem nowadays that requires a pet to be with them at all times.
      - papln 7y ago
        This is clearly false hyperbole.
        owlninja 7y ago
        I'll agree OP was hyperbolic, but there certainly is a marked increase. The worst part is all these companies selling emotional support animal certificates or registries, despite the fact they are usually meaningless.
        x2f10 7y ago
        >I'll agree OP was hyperbolic, but there certainly is a marked increase. Of course there is. Emotional support animals are now being offered as an alternative to medication.
        darkpuma 7y ago
        They're also now being offered as an alternative to your pet getting stowed with the luggage when flying...
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - jrace 7y ago
    >Purely based on empirical observations (so, it's worth what it's worth) I feel like dog owners automatically assume that everyone else loves dogs as much as they do. They care very little about people who are scared, allergic, disgusted, etc. I feel the same way about people who have kids. Despite being allergic to dogs I loved having dogs at my workplace...and miss it as no dogs at my new work. I understand why people would not appreciate it. We had good rules and good owners. The dogs stayed in the owners office most of the day and only visited those who wanted to see them. At least in my office almost everyone was happy to see the dogs.
  - tcoff91 7y ago
    My workplace allows dogs but is quite strict about them being on leash at all times and not to be left unattended. It works out quite well.
  - papln 7y ago
    > in the middle of the open space. There's your problem. You work in a bullpen. Dogs are one of many triggers for problems in bullpens.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      True. When I worked at the place with dogs we had offices. Open office or cubes just suck in principle. With or without dogs.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Totally agree. It’s a matter of personal preferences just as any other kind of office setup. Some people love open office, some don’t, some like dogs in the office, some don’t. It would be nice if was easier for people to work according to their preferences.
  - firstplacelast 7y ago
    Awww, this makes me sad. I am a dog lover and I forget that some people are really not. I'm currently in a small office where the CEO brings his dog. It's an older, smaller (I think terrier) breed and he's the only one that does it currently. But this dog is fantastic! I think I've heard him bark like 2x in the 3 years I've been there, he's quite laid-back and wanders around the office but is more likely to follow the CEO around and lay at his feet or he sleeps outside the conference room when the CEO is in meetings. He will come to the kitchen when people are in it, but he has been trained to stay out of it so he just sits at the door. I love, love, love having him in the office and I think everyone else does too (but now I'm hoping there aren't people adversely affected that don't speak up). Even when the CEO is traveling, sometimes his wife will drop him off for the day because the dog is so chill and people like the interaction, will take him on walks around the business park, etc.
  - dmitrygr 7y ago
    > open space There's your problem right there
- Raphmedia 7y ago
  I hate to be a party pooper, but make sure that if you bring animals to the office they are hypoallergenic. For cats, you want to look for breeds that produce less Fel D1 protein. There is probably something similar for dogs. One office I once interviewed at had the CEO's dog roaming around and I had to decline the job offer for this reason. I'm sure that I could have talked about it but nobody wants to be the one who kicks the office dog out.
  - simonebrunozzi 7y ago
    Was there something specific you didn't like about that dog?
    - stevewodil 7y ago
      I'm going to guess being allergic
      - Raphmedia 7y ago
        Bingo.
  - awillen 7y ago
    The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. It's unfortunate for allergic people when dogs are allowed, but it's also potentially a boon to the company. Aside from the benefits of lowering stress, etc., there's also a substantial monetary benefit for people who would otherwise have to take their dogs to daycare or hire a walker for them. I was spending ~$7000/year on a walker in SF, so this isn't chump change. Ultimately, each company has to make its own decision about whether to prioritize those who are allergic to pets or those who wish to bring pets in the office. There are costs and benefits to each.
    - Raphmedia 7y ago
      > The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. Why wouldn't it be useful? Pet allergies can trigger anaphylaxis which can result in death. Allergies to dogs and cats affect 10%–20% of the population[1]. That's a big chunk of the workforce you are cutting away from your company. Purchasing a hypoallergenic animal for the office's pet is simply being responsible. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809771/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809771/
- tombert 7y ago
  We tried that for awhile at a previous job. It was fun at first, but there were two problems: 1) Dogs like to poop. A lot. Even with a responsible owner, if the dog runs around the office frequently, they would poop, and someone would step in it, and that is gross. 2) Dogs like to bark. Most dogs are fine, but occasionally there would be one that wouldn't shut up and get them all started. After a few months, they got rid of the policy.
  - simonebrunozzi 7y ago
    Unfortunately, based on my very limited experience, most pet owners don't want to properly train their pets, and these are the consequences of lack of training (assuming these pets don't have a specific mental disorder). If you ask experienced dog trainers, they would all tell you that pooping and barking can be fixed with proper training for pretty much any dog.
  - xythian 7y ago
    Huh. I worked at an office with dogs for ~4 years and never experienced pooping or barking problems or heard rumors of such issues. The biggest problem we had were allergies. There was an eventual compromise with dogs only allowed in specific conference rooms that had air purifiers running.
    - tombert 7y ago
      I think the pooping mostly stemmed from it being a pretty big office, and a non-enforcement of "keep your dog near you". Maybe with better policies it wouldn't have been an issue.
    - e40 7y ago
      Yeah, I have dog/cat allergies and it can be terrible, depending on the dog/cat.
  - ken 7y ago
    Sounds like yet another reason to have private offices. Like dogs, some people just don't shut up, and once two people are talking, the rest often don't see much reason to stay quiet, since the silence has already been broken.
- world32 7y ago
  I love dogs and have one myself, but I don't think this is always a good idea. Maybe bring your dog in once a week or something like that but every day is too much. Some people have allergies, some dogs are poorly trained etc.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Once a week would already be nice. How about bring your dog day once a week? Then add a “no meetings” once a week and the workplace would already be much better.
makerofspoons 7y ago
I'm not sure we should be encouraging people to own more dogs and cats- they have a substantial carbon footprint for being extravagances: https://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/the_surprisingly_large_carbon_paw_print_of_your_beloved_pet_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/the_surprisingly_large_carb...
- papln 7y ago
  We shouldn't be encouraging people in developed nations to have people either. They have a much larger carbon footprint. The article you cite explains that clearly.
  - AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
    why only developed? developing ones too! Really, we should just sterilize everyone. It's the best way to go carbon zero.
- Liquix 7y ago
  Something you classify as an 'extravagance' could be classified by others as 'best friend', 'most uplifting part of the day', revered by the egyptians' 'my only reason for getting out of bed when faced with crippling depression', etc. Amusement parks, restaurants, and the manufacture of your latest high-tech gadget also generate carbon footprints. One could argue that none of those things are strictly necessary for society and could be classified as 'extravagances'. But we continue to use and purchase them - because they bring joy and value to us.
  - AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
    Beyond what you're saying (which is quite true), if you're rescuing dogs, as I mostly do, the only way you can say there is a net increase in carbon is because I'm providing a better quality of life for my dogs (which undoubtably increases carbon emissions) and causing my dog to live longer than it would if it was wild or killed in a shelter. I don't particularly see "reduce carbon impact by killing dogs/animals" as being a winning slogan.
charliesharding 7y ago
Would it follow that having kids is good for our well-being too? Sometimes I wonder if the decline of the family/people choosing not to have kids is linked with increasing rates of mental health problems
- trevyn 7y ago
  Maybe, maybe not, but one should also consider the well-being of the kids in this world.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dawhizkid 7y ago
  I'm one of those people who has decided to purposefully not have kids because I do not believe they will have a better life than me due to climate change. I suspect there's an increasing number of people who think that way.
  - charliesharding 7y ago
    One could argue that you're worsening the lot of the world by not having kids that you impress the importance of addressing climate change upon. Your children could help to radiate that message outwards and may even become scientists that help to reverse it! Of course there's no guarantee that they'll adopt your views but if you fundamentally believe the world is capable of saving then it's worth a shot :)
    - dawhizkid 7y ago
      Yes, though if I were to have kids I would adopt, then, and not create one.
    - mikestew 7y ago
      "Could", yes. The overwhelming odds, however, are that they'll grow up to be upper-middle class consumers who don't do anything outstanding other than hoover up huge amounts of resources and make the problem worse.
floatingatoll 7y ago
Has anyone done a study on pet inanimate objects, such as rocks or coconuts or plants? Not to undervalue live animal pets, but people are pretty intensely personal about their pet objects, too — and if the same benefit can exist for a pet rock, then you can say that your pet has a small carbon footprint and be twice right.
- scottlegrand2 7y ago
  I know too many guys intensely personal about their six-figure jalopies. They don't seem particularly healthy to me but maybe I'm missing something...
- coldpie 7y ago
  That's an interesting thought, especially plants. While my cats are precious to me, I'd put my home garden at a very close second place. Twice a day I go out and review my garden and it never fails to improve my mood. Noticing what is new each day, performing the chores that need attention, discovering little surprises (I saw a stag beetle this morning!).
  - recusancy 7y ago
    That's probably more related the fact that going into greener spaces helps our moods. https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/sour-mood-getting-you-down-get-back-to-nature https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/sour-mood-getti...
- DangitBobby 7y ago
  You might like this episode of Hidden Brain: [Pets, Pests And Food: Our Complex, Contradictory Attitudes Toward Animals](https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=733456435 https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...) >VEDANTAM: When we come back, do our pets actually improve our lives? >HERZOG: Pet owners were better off in terms of their psychological and physical health than non-pet owners. But as they pointed out, so are people with Mercedes-Benzes.
pmiller2 7y ago
I love my dog. I really do, and I'm sure she grants me some health and psychological benefits just for being around. But, for all the benefits, she's still a multiple hundred dollar a month expense between food, vet bills, boarding when I want to go away on vacation and can't take her, dog walkers when necessary, etc. Being a good dog owner is expensive! Then, there's also the fact that I'm a renter. My dog is 3, so, when you combine these two facts, that means I'm looking at up to ~10 years of housing problems, because the number of apartments that allow pets at all is maybe 10% of the total. I've already decided that, if it came right down to it, if I need to move and my dog becomes an impediment, that I will need to find her another good home. But, as I am in a rent controlled, pets allowed apartment in a location that has a "just cause for eviction" law, I don't see that day coming any time soon. TL;DR: Pet ownership isn't all benefits. It's expensive and also can bring housing problems.

62 points by whack 7y ago

For a while I worked at a place where they allowed dogs in the office. It’s probably not for everyone it but I personally felt this have the workplace a very nice touch and made it much more humane.

dudul 7y ago
It is indeed not for everyone since I personally hated it :) I find it extremely distracting. When there is a dog around, you'll always find a bunch of people throwing the ball with it or something like that in the middle of the open space. And there is of course the dog owner who just doesn't care where the dog is. Doesn't care that it's coming to my desk to lick my shoes, or bothering me while I'm trying to eat in the kitchen. Purely based on empirical observations (so, it's worth what it's worth) I feel like dog owners automatically assume that everyone else loves dogs as much as they do. They care very little about people who are scared, allergic, disgusted, etc.
- danbolt 7y ago
  I have dog allergies and work in a workplace that allows dogs. It's not terribly fun, and I feel like I'm fighting a politically-uphill battle to not be seen as the bad one while still having a decent space to work.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    It's ridiculous how many people have "service" animals nowadays. I don't care for the smell of animals, nor can I vet the training abilities of all animal owners, so I'd rather not deal with them at all. Somehow everyone has an emotional problem nowadays that requires a pet to be with them at all times.
    - papln 7y ago
      This is clearly false hyperbole.
      - owlninja 7y ago
        I'll agree OP was hyperbolic, but there certainly is a marked increase. The worst part is all these companies selling emotional support animal certificates or registries, despite the fact they are usually meaningless.
        x2f10 7y ago
        >I'll agree OP was hyperbolic, but there certainly is a marked increase. Of course there is. Emotional support animals are now being offered as an alternative to medication.
        darkpuma 7y ago
        They're also now being offered as an alternative to your pet getting stowed with the luggage when flying...
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- jrace 7y ago
  >Purely based on empirical observations (so, it's worth what it's worth) I feel like dog owners automatically assume that everyone else loves dogs as much as they do. They care very little about people who are scared, allergic, disgusted, etc. I feel the same way about people who have kids. Despite being allergic to dogs I loved having dogs at my workplace...and miss it as no dogs at my new work. I understand why people would not appreciate it. We had good rules and good owners. The dogs stayed in the owners office most of the day and only visited those who wanted to see them. At least in my office almost everyone was happy to see the dogs.
- tcoff91 7y ago
  My workplace allows dogs but is quite strict about them being on leash at all times and not to be left unattended. It works out quite well.
- papln 7y ago
  > in the middle of the open space. There's your problem. You work in a bullpen. Dogs are one of many triggers for problems in bullpens.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    True. When I worked at the place with dogs we had offices. Open office or cubes just suck in principle. With or without dogs.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Totally agree. It’s a matter of personal preferences just as any other kind of office setup. Some people love open office, some don’t, some like dogs in the office, some don’t. It would be nice if was easier for people to work according to their preferences.
- firstplacelast 7y ago
  Awww, this makes me sad. I am a dog lover and I forget that some people are really not. I'm currently in a small office where the CEO brings his dog. It's an older, smaller (I think terrier) breed and he's the only one that does it currently. But this dog is fantastic! I think I've heard him bark like 2x in the 3 years I've been there, he's quite laid-back and wanders around the office but is more likely to follow the CEO around and lay at his feet or he sleeps outside the conference room when the CEO is in meetings. He will come to the kitchen when people are in it, but he has been trained to stay out of it so he just sits at the door. I love, love, love having him in the office and I think everyone else does too (but now I'm hoping there aren't people adversely affected that don't speak up). Even when the CEO is traveling, sometimes his wife will drop him off for the day because the dog is so chill and people like the interaction, will take him on walks around the business park, etc.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  > open space There's your problem right there
Raphmedia 7y ago
I hate to be a party pooper, but make sure that if you bring animals to the office they are hypoallergenic. For cats, you want to look for breeds that produce less Fel D1 protein. There is probably something similar for dogs. One office I once interviewed at had the CEO's dog roaming around and I had to decline the job offer for this reason. I'm sure that I could have talked about it but nobody wants to be the one who kicks the office dog out.
- simonebrunozzi 7y ago
  Was there something specific you didn't like about that dog?
  - stevewodil 7y ago
    I'm going to guess being allergic
    - Raphmedia 7y ago
      Bingo.
- awillen 7y ago
  The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. It's unfortunate for allergic people when dogs are allowed, but it's also potentially a boon to the company. Aside from the benefits of lowering stress, etc., there's also a substantial monetary benefit for people who would otherwise have to take their dogs to daycare or hire a walker for them. I was spending ~$7000/year on a walker in SF, so this isn't chump change. Ultimately, each company has to make its own decision about whether to prioritize those who are allergic to pets or those who wish to bring pets in the office. There are costs and benefits to each.
  - Raphmedia 7y ago
    > The reality is that a hypoallergenic-pet-only policy isn't all that useful. Why wouldn't it be useful? Pet allergies can trigger anaphylaxis which can result in death. Allergies to dogs and cats affect 10%–20% of the population[1]. That's a big chunk of the workforce you are cutting away from your company. Purchasing a hypoallergenic animal for the office's pet is simply being responsible. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809771/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5809771/
tombert 7y ago
We tried that for awhile at a previous job. It was fun at first, but there were two problems: 1) Dogs like to poop. A lot. Even with a responsible owner, if the dog runs around the office frequently, they would poop, and someone would step in it, and that is gross. 2) Dogs like to bark. Most dogs are fine, but occasionally there would be one that wouldn't shut up and get them all started. After a few months, they got rid of the policy.
- simonebrunozzi 7y ago
  Unfortunately, based on my very limited experience, most pet owners don't want to properly train their pets, and these are the consequences of lack of training (assuming these pets don't have a specific mental disorder). If you ask experienced dog trainers, they would all tell you that pooping and barking can be fixed with proper training for pretty much any dog.
- xythian 7y ago
  Huh. I worked at an office with dogs for ~4 years and never experienced pooping or barking problems or heard rumors of such issues. The biggest problem we had were allergies. There was an eventual compromise with dogs only allowed in specific conference rooms that had air purifiers running.
  - tombert 7y ago
    I think the pooping mostly stemmed from it being a pretty big office, and a non-enforcement of "keep your dog near you". Maybe with better policies it wouldn't have been an issue.
  - e40 7y ago
    Yeah, I have dog/cat allergies and it can be terrible, depending on the dog/cat.
- ken 7y ago
  Sounds like yet another reason to have private offices. Like dogs, some people just don't shut up, and once two people are talking, the rest often don't see much reason to stay quiet, since the silence has already been broken.
world32 7y ago
I love dogs and have one myself, but I don't think this is always a good idea. Maybe bring your dog in once a week or something like that but every day is too much. Some people have allergies, some dogs are poorly trained etc.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  Once a week would already be nice. How about bring your dog day once a week? Then add a “no meetings” once a week and the workplace would already be much better.

makerofspoons 7y ago

I'm not sure we should be encouraging people to own more dogs and cats- they have a substantial carbon footprint for being extravagances: https://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/the_surprisingly_large_carbon_paw_print_of_your_beloved_pet_partner/ https://www.salon.com/2014/11/20/the_surprisingly_large_carb...

papln 7y ago
We shouldn't be encouraging people in developed nations to have people either. They have a much larger carbon footprint. The article you cite explains that clearly.
- AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
  why only developed? developing ones too! Really, we should just sterilize everyone. It's the best way to go carbon zero.
Liquix 7y ago
Something you classify as an 'extravagance' could be classified by others as 'best friend', 'most uplifting part of the day', revered by the egyptians' 'my only reason for getting out of bed when faced with crippling depression', etc. Amusement parks, restaurants, and the manufacture of your latest high-tech gadget also generate carbon footprints. One could argue that none of those things are strictly necessary for society and could be classified as 'extravagances'. But we continue to use and purchase them - because they bring joy and value to us.
- AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
  Beyond what you're saying (which is quite true), if you're rescuing dogs, as I mostly do, the only way you can say there is a net increase in carbon is because I'm providing a better quality of life for my dogs (which undoubtably increases carbon emissions) and causing my dog to live longer than it would if it was wild or killed in a shelter. I don't particularly see "reduce carbon impact by killing dogs/animals" as being a winning slogan.

charliesharding 7y ago

Would it follow that having kids is good for our well-being too? Sometimes I wonder if the decline of the family/people choosing not to have kids is linked with increasing rates of mental health problems

trevyn 7y ago
Maybe, maybe not, but one should also consider the well-being of the kids in this world.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dawhizkid 7y ago
I'm one of those people who has decided to purposefully not have kids because I do not believe they will have a better life than me due to climate change. I suspect there's an increasing number of people who think that way.
- charliesharding 7y ago
  One could argue that you're worsening the lot of the world by not having kids that you impress the importance of addressing climate change upon. Your children could help to radiate that message outwards and may even become scientists that help to reverse it! Of course there's no guarantee that they'll adopt your views but if you fundamentally believe the world is capable of saving then it's worth a shot :)
  - dawhizkid 7y ago
    Yes, though if I were to have kids I would adopt, then, and not create one.
  - mikestew 7y ago
    "Could", yes. The overwhelming odds, however, are that they'll grow up to be upper-middle class consumers who don't do anything outstanding other than hoover up huge amounts of resources and make the problem worse.

floatingatoll 7y ago

Has anyone done a study on pet inanimate objects, such as rocks or coconuts or plants? Not to undervalue live animal pets, but people are pretty intensely personal about their pet objects, too — and if the same benefit can exist for a pet rock, then you can say that your pet has a small carbon footprint and be twice right.

scottlegrand2 7y ago
I know too many guys intensely personal about their six-figure jalopies. They don't seem particularly healthy to me but maybe I'm missing something...
coldpie 7y ago
That's an interesting thought, especially plants. While my cats are precious to me, I'd put my home garden at a very close second place. Twice a day I go out and review my garden and it never fails to improve my mood. Noticing what is new each day, performing the chores that need attention, discovering little surprises (I saw a stag beetle this morning!).
- recusancy 7y ago
  That's probably more related the fact that going into greener spaces helps our moods. https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/sour-mood-getting-you-down-get-back-to-nature https://www.health.harvard.edu/mind-and-mood/sour-mood-getti...
DangitBobby 7y ago
You might like this episode of Hidden Brain: [Pets, Pests And Food: Our Complex, Contradictory Attitudes Toward Animals](https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=733456435 https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...) >VEDANTAM: When we come back, do our pets actually improve our lives? >HERZOG: Pet owners were better off in terms of their psychological and physical health than non-pet owners. But as they pointed out, so are people with Mercedes-Benzes.

pmiller2 7y ago

I love my dog. I really do, and I'm sure she grants me some health and psychological benefits just for being around. But, for all the benefits, she's still a multiple hundred dollar a month expense between food, vet bills, boarding when I want to go away on vacation and can't take her, dog walkers when necessary, etc. Being a good dog owner is expensive! Then, there's also the fact that I'm a renter. My dog is 3, so, when you combine these two facts, that means I'm looking at up to ~10 years of housing problems, because the number of apartments that allow pets at all is maybe 10% of the total. I've already decided that, if it came right down to it, if I need to move and my dog becomes an impediment, that I will need to find her another good home. But, as I am in a rent controlled, pets allowed apartment in a location that has a "just cause for eviction" law, I don't see that day coming any time soon. TL;DR: Pet ownership isn't all benefits. It's expensive and also can bring housing problems.