Animal companions are an important part of American life. A 2010 study estimated that we share our lives and homes with some 90 million cats and 80 million dogs and spend $48 billion on their care. Being so important to our lives, it should be no surprise that companion animals also enter into our very human conflicts.

How laws in the U.S. view animals is evolving but generally they are treated as property and disputes in the courts involving them are primarily adjudicated based on contract and property laws. That approach does not take into account the human emotions that enter into disputes involving companion animals.

Human disputes involving companion animals include neighbor-neighbor disputes for such things as roosters crowing early in the morning, dogs barking at night and cats using gardens as litter boxes. More series disputes involve dog bites and malpractice disputes with veterinaries. But perhaps the greatest number of disputes concern custody of the companion animal when couples dissolve their relationship.

Generally disputes involving companion animals can be dealt with using traditional law, which focuses on property laws, the best interests of the humans involved, the best interests of the animals involved or some combination of these. When conflicts arise involving animal companions some resort to animal control officers or legal remedies which most frequently result in bad feelings.

It should then be no surprise that mediation is becoming increasingly common in conflicts involving this challenge. Mediators are experienced in dealing with the emotions involved and in helping the parties reach an agreement.

I once was asked to mediate for a young couple without children who wished to divide their assets and liabilities and go on with their lives as separate individuals. The couple wanted to begin by expressing to one another their feelings about their relationship before dealing with assets and debts. Things like the house, cars and personal property were all dealt with.  Credit card debt was next and then we came to the final issue—the couple’s three dogs.

Emotions became high again as they could not agree. but eventually the couple was able to set aside the custody issue to consider what was in the best interest of the three dogs. They were able to talk about their work and travel schedules, the living arrangement each now had and their ability of care for the dogs. Ultimately, they both agreed that it was in the best interest of the dogs to remain together.

With these considerations in mind, they agreed that the dogs would be kept during the week by the one who worked from home while the other could have the dogs on the weekend whenever possible. They further agreed to equally split medical bills and to review this arrangement in one year. While the two individuals still had bad feelings about each other, they were able to agree on what they felt was right for the dogs.

Where can one find mediators for animal companion disputes? I’d recommend starting with low or low-cost neighborhood community mediation centers. Veterinarians and animal control offices might be able to make referrals. In my experience, conflicts involving animal companions have been some of the most emotional but can often be resolved when the pet owners choose steps that are best for all.

Public policy conflicts often seem to illustrate some aspects of conflict theory. They often quickly escalate and become defined in simplified pro and con positions, often bringing out intense emotions and bringing together unrelated individuals and groups. Public policy disputes can be mediated but can often be a challenge.

I followed a blog detailing a dispute in Seattle. The dispute concerned the city’s repaving of a street that would affect bike lanes. The dispute escalated, grew to involve many citizens and resulted in some highly emotional blog posts. Seattle’s mayor proposed confidential mediation sessions with some of those opposing citizens and those who were in support.

As the conflict grew, charges were made about how the proposed mediator had contributed funds to the political campaigns of the mayor and to a councilmember who was a known opponent of bike lanes. Another charged that the mediator had previously worked for the mayor’s father. The mediator said that he did not see the contributions as a conflict of interest and the councilmember issued a statement that “this isn’t a conspiracy by the Mayor’s Office.”

Later it was disclosed that the mediator’s fee would be coming from the city’s Bicycle Program which raised more objections. Others objected that the mediation was being conducted confidentially ahd felt such proposed expenditures and policy should be open to the public.

As the conflict escalated advocates held well-attended rallies and posted signs in businesses.

The responses posted on the blog demonstrated how emotionally involved impacted citizens had become.  One wrote that the area’s residents were “entitled well-off white people” and that the city emphasized building bike lanes in white, wealthy neighborhoods over poorer, more diverse neighborhoods.” The public’s discourse began to move from disagreements over a proposed action to attributions about other parties involved in the dispute—clear evidence of an escalated conflict.

I once did a public policy mediation involving a city and residents of a mobile home community. As I arrived at the mediation residents met me in the building’s lobby to tell me how racist the city’s actions have been and sought out my agreement to such claims. I had to explain that they would have amble opportunity to express their grievances in the mediation but not in the lobby. It was a long, emotional process involving some 25 people, but it was resolved. It took hours but we were able to “drill down” to the originating events, which were as simple as distribution of regulations in languages all residents could understand. Some of the residents were reacting to strict enforcement of regulations they had never been informed of. When the city agreed to a review of the regulations with input from residents and the distribution of the details in all languages spoken by the residents, there was agreement.

Public policy disputes often become escalated over pro and con positions and can typically become emotional. Whether the dispute is over bike lanes in Seattle or over mobile home community regulations, the conflicts can grow to mobilize supporters on either side. And occasionally the originating issue becomes lost or distorted as the conflict discourse grows. Bike lanes and mobile home community relations can be mediated.

Are any of those techniques used in local communities appropriate on a national scale? I believe so, and suggest one: All parties need to be willing to go back to the originating issue, recognize their interdependence and be willing to deal honestly and cooperatively with the originating issue.