Taking the peeves out of provocative pet policies

“What we are seeing are personal issues becoming community issues. We need to get clear on which is which.”

A quirky fact in the cohousing world is that the most rancorous living-together conflicts begin with the letter P. From parking, paint and pesticides to parenting, participation and process, there's something about “P” that riles folks up. Most recently, our community, Wild Sage Cohousing, tackled “P” as in pets, or more specifically, cats – the indoor vs. the outdoor variety.

Listening to casual discussion, I had noticed that our community had splintered into three distinct camps: adamant supporters of indoor-only cats, adamant opponents of indoor-only cats and those who didn't give a meow either way.

As the initial team leader on developing a cat policy, I wanted to create a process to help people with different viewpoints talk to each other. I decided on a kinesthetic activity to get people both moving and thinking. Before the community meeting about the indoor/outdoor cat controversy, I wrote the following sentences on three large pieces of paper:

1 All cats should be kept indoors at all times. It's safer for birds and safer for the cat.

2 Cats should be allowed outdoors on a case-by-case basis, as long as they are not destructive and always wear a bell.

3 Indoors, outdoors – it's up to the owner and up to the cat.

About 25 community members attended the meeting. I read each sentence aloud and placed the three statements in different corners of the room. I then asked the participants to walk over to the paper that most closely reflected their viewpoint and wait there. After a few moments, three groups emerged, each comprised of people with similar perspectives. This helped people see that others shared their point of view.

Once we had three cohesive groups (let's call them A, B, and C), I asked everyone to regroup into five discussion groups, with at least two people from A, B and C in each group. This would ensure a range of perspectives in each discussion. I asked participants to spend 10 minutes sharing their ideas about indoor and outdoor cats and, if they wished, about any other cat concerns.

I also requested that each group write one sentence they could all agree upon about the indoor/outdoor issue. (One person from every group took notes.) After the allotted time, representatives from each group expressed key concerns and possible solutions they discussed. As they talked, I wrote down their ideas on a large flip chart. While participants offered up many comments about bells, collars, birds, sandboxes and microchips, I thought the most interesting observation came from a cat aficionado named John. “What we are seeing are personal issues becoming community issues," he said. "We need to get clear on which is which.”

For instance, several people said that cats should stay indoors because it is safer for the cats. This is probably true – our local Humane Society says so, too.

But who should make choices about the cat's safety – and quality of life? Should the cat's owner (or guardian, depending on your point of view) make the decision, or the whole community? What about the decision to spay, neuter or implant microchips? This is probably a personal decision – unless a cat that hasn't been neutered is systematically spraying every window well in the neighborhood!

On the other hand, if neighbors are concerned that outdoor cats will pee in the children's sandbox, this becomes a community issue. We also realized that while we might protect some birds by keeping our cats indoors, wandering cats from surrounding developments might not know about our rules. The discussion also generated a wonderful idea: ask everyone to take photographs of their cats and dogs. This will help us know who is part of our animal community as opposed to an errant passerby. Also, by identifying which cat belongs with which human, we'll know who to contact if a cat is stalking birds, pooping in the herb garden or otherwise behaving badly.

While we're still working out the details of our pet agreement, this cross-cultural discussion went a long way toward clarifying the content and – just as importantly, the tone, of this provocative “P” policy.