I have an ethical question on dogs in protected parks. I understand that people love to be out with their dogs & I love dogs too. I have no problems with people who are in parks with dogs that are leashed but there is a certain protected wetlands area near my house that won't even allow dogs with leashes. I fully agree with that because these days, dog leashes stretch to give them freedom to roam. In this particular park, they don't want the people to leave the trail because of the delicate nature of the wetlands so my question is: how do you approcach someone in there who has brought their dog, although on a leash, still sniffing & scratching thru the long grasses & reeds where dozens of birds or species could be nesting!
I love this park because every step you take you hear SOMETHING rustling in the grass or reeds beside you. I hate the thought of a dog disturbing anything on the sides of these carefully marked paths. I don't want to come across as crazy/mean nature girl! If the dog wasn't on a leash, I would feel no remorse at being a raving 'get out of here' lunatic but this seemed a little more difficult. Any advice on how to deal with it?
I have two dogs and love them to death but when I'm out in "nature" they stay home. Whether or not a dog can actually chase or catch another animal is almost irrelevant. Their very presence (scent, sound) can be extremely stressful for native wildlife.
I have a dog that goes almost everywhere with me, and while she is very well-behaved and cleaned up after, I'm sensitive to where I take her. I wouldn't be offended if someone came up to me in a civil manner and expressed their concerns over her presence, but that's just me. I wouldn't worry so much about people's reaction...you'd be doing the Right Thing in trying to protect the environment. Now if we could only pass a child leash law. ;) (I'm kidding) Any responsible dog owner should know better anyway.
Posted by Richard Wong on April 7, 2006 at 6:52 PM
My issue is with people who don't leash their dogs in public. When I lived in the Bay Area, I had several incidents that almost ended up messy for the animal and it's owner. I was shooting my favorite place in Pacifica when this dog ran from across the meadow and charged me twice when I was shooting. I didn't even know it was coming til it was several feet away. The owner did nothing. A few minutes, later same thing. Which the owner just called the dog's name but offered no apology. I offered a dirty look. The thought of clocking it with my tripod head crossed my mind but since no physical contact was made I left it at that. Another time happened at Fort Funston which is a popular dog walking place. I believe there is a dog leash policy in those cities, regardless people should learn some proper manners.
This is just another example of the "sense of entitilement/ the rules don't apply to me" attitude that so many in this country have. Whether it be cigarette smokers, parents with their yardapes or dog owners( or photographers) some people think the world revolves around them. Locally, we have a university owned forest which previously allowed leashed dogs only (explicitly stated on signs). So many people ignored the rule that no dogs are allowed on the property now. I am glad the university had the spine to stand up to all those irresponsible dog owners who, of course complained long and hard at the change.
As for confronting the irresponsible, it may be safer for you to keep quiet unless your intuition is good enough to determine the type of person you are dealing with. I had to learn the hard way: slashed tires.
Good Luck and safety first!
Jack
Posted by Roger Rouch on April 8, 2006 at 10:09 AM
I hike weekly or more often in a local open space where dogs are allowed, but must be on a leash. I'd guess that at least half and maybe more dog walkers unleash their dog soon after being out of sight of the parking area. Another county open space nearby requires that dogs be under "verbal control". I rather doubt that even among the best behaved there are only a few of man's best friends that can resist a good rabbit or deer chase.
Posted by Becky Wolfe on April 9, 2006 at 12:15 PM
Thanks for all the comments. Looks like we all sort of feel the same way.
When I had a dog, I enjoyed taking her on hikes out in the wild blue yonder, or a walk around the block but I wouldn't ever take her in a protected animal place or let her roam free when anyone else was around (even in the neighbourhood)
Interesting, Jack, that they enforced that rule at the university & the dog walkers lost their priveleges. Guess that has to happen!
Debbie, lol, I hear ya on the child leash law In some parks I'd rather have a dog running around than some people's children. At least the dogs are usually quieter!
If dogs are barred from a particular park, then I would mention this to the dog-owner in a low-key way *if* the person didn't look too scary. (No, I won't confront the person who looks like he/she might get nasty if confronted....I would go look for a park ranger or someone else in uniform.) I would report the infringement to the park authorities even if I couldn't find someone on site, in order to document the need to have someone there to intervene. Another action to consider is a letter to the editor, or a short informative article, in the local media, explaining the reasons why dogs are not good for that particular park.
In general, people who will bring a dog (let alone a loose dog) to a park that restricts dogs do not understand (and may not want to understand, or care about) the damage dogs can do. This is likely to be the same person who thinks picking "just one" flower won't hurt anything, or sliding down from one switchback to another instead of walking the trail isn't really a problem. (And yes, some parents are like that, too.) Even in non-park areas, dog owners are likely to think their dog's needs and wants trump other peoples' convenience--and even lives. Where I live, loose dogs attack livestock and have attacked and killed people--and dog owners routinely insist that *their* loose dog would never do something like that, or that the problem is "exaggerated."
I like dogs; I've owned dogs...but dogs don't belong in parks where their behavior interferes with the intended use of the park...whether it's preserving a fragile flora or leaving nesting birds undisturbed. Some areas can withstand dogs on a leash, at a reasonably low density, but others can't.
I'd agree that dog owners should ALWAYS follow the rules. Period.
However, I'd like to make an additional comment: there's a ravine near my house with a public pathway in it. This ravine is listed on the city's website as being part of the "Parks for Paws" program. That means it is officially listed as an "off-leash" area. But there is not a single sign in the ravine, or at any of its entrances, that says that. The city sends a list of off-leash parks to all dog owners each year with their licence renewals, but the non-dog-owners don't get this, unless they go looking for it. (And since about half the dogs I see down there are on leash, I suspect that many dog owners don't read it, either!) Every time I walk my dog there off leash, and pass someone without a dog (or with a dog on a leash), I wonder if they think I'm ignoring the city's general rules about dogs on leashes. Nobody has ever said anything to me, though.
My point: sometimes the rules (or exceptions to the rules) aren't posted!
My wife and I go to a lot of parks and places to shoot. When we go, she almost always brings one of her dog with her. He or she is never off leash except when they are in the car. The difference from your average person that takes their dog with them is that she uses a service dog. Which ever one she brings is intitled by law to be with her, even in parks or other areas that don't normally allow dogs. We did the whole 5+ mile trek from North Silver Falls to South Silver Falls in the Silver Falls State Park last fall. If she hadn't have had her service dog to help pull her up the last half mile of very steep trail, she probably wouldn't have been able to make it. As it was I ended up lugging my camera gear, her camera gear and the dogs pack to make it easier on them.
This doesn't mean we would take the dog out in the middle of a wildlife breeding ground or distrub nesting or animal habitat. We also carry enough poop bags to bag most of the poop that all of the other people that don't clean up after their dogs leave as well as our own.
A person does not have to be blind to have a service dog. My wife's are mobility assistance dogs. Nor do service dogs have to have capes or harnesses on (ours usually wears a harness or a cape though) to prove they are a service dog. You will find them on a leash of some kind though. While a service dog does not have the right to mis-behave, threaten or tear up, they do have the right to go just about anywhere their human partener goes.
So if you see someone in an area like this, you could ask them if their dog is their service dog (key word, "their" service dog. It's only a service dog when it's helping the person that is entitled to a service dog). If they say no, then you could politely say that as far as you know, pet dogs are not allowed in the area. If they say yes, then there is really nothing you can do, since they don't have to prove they are entitled to a service dog. Someone in authority can ask certain other questions (like what kind of service does the dog perform) and if the dog is not behaving, the ranger or whomever can ask them to remove their dog.
We spent some good quality time with the new director of the Tillimook Forest Center that just opened a few weeks ago. We had been stopped by most of his staff about her dog as we went through the facility. My wife gave him a lot of pointers about people with service dogs about how he and his staff can interact with them and deal with people that try to bring their dogs in that are not service dogs.
Since we deal a lot with service dog related issues, we'll both be the first to agree that not all service dogs are as well behaved as they should be. Nor, in some cases, are the owners of these dogs. In most cases a dog can be trained, not always so with the human.
If you are ever in one of the Oregon parks and see someone with what looks like a hairy small black bear, that will probably be my wife and one of her Bouvier des Flandres service dogs. There aren't many of them being used as service dogs, but they are naturals at it.
Thanks for the insight Mike! You certainly gave me a point to ponder regarding service dogs. And I fully agree with your comments. Though I would have to say on the whole, most service dogs aren't going to be bounding around off leash in these parks but there COULD be some exceptions to everything like you say.
I have seen a few Bouviers in my day & totally know that they look like a small black bear! My parents live in the boonies & someone 'hiked' thru their yard one day with a Bouvier & they took it for a bear cub at first!! (which wouldn't be uncommon to see) Lovable things they are though!
This spring we were in Haynes (the park Becky is referring to) and there were two elderly women, and I do mean women not ladies, who were wandering all over in the do not go areas picking wild asparagus. When we pointed out the do not enter signs we were told to mind our own business and to perform and impossible canal act upon our selves. So we just took their pictures and they left.
Posted by Leann Greene on July 27, 2006 at 6:05 AM
So far the rudest thing I have encountered while shooting was an unleashed dog. I was setting up my tripod for a shot of 3 deer in a field when the freindly dog ran up to me(it is a popular spot for walking)-still trying to set up the shot i petted the dog with one hand and my other hand on the shutter when the owner came up behind me. I explained in a whisper"there are deer right there" the owner walked past me signaling the dog and said in a snotty tone:"yes they are there every morning" . Then the deer did the danger blow and bounded off with me standing there in disbelief. I regret not giving that person a piece of my mind and wouldn't hesitate saying something if it happens again.
On another note we can't complain about the apathy of younger generations towards the environment and conservation and want them to just stay home also. Parents should use good sense about where they take their kids but they should take them outdoors more wether they are quiet or not.(yes I have children).
- - I would first point out to the owner that dogs are not allowed, and why,
and if they make a hassle out of it, then I'd let them know that if they do not remove the animal I would report them, and since I have NO regard for such people, I would!
- - The problem after all is the owners who think the rules apply to everyone but them, and that is usually becuse they have no respect for much of anything anyway. It's not much different than dog owners who take their animals for a walk to crap in other people's yards so that they don't have to clean it up in their own.
- - - An added note for Lee---
You had a camera with you and did the exact right thing, as more people should. Or at least half of it.
Take the peoples picture BUT ALSO let them know that you will be giving a copy of it to the park management for a sitation if they are ever seen in there again.
- - - You can not do anything about the ignorant low-lifes in this world, but you can make some of them pay for it. I've also never been one to not speak my mind about what I think of some people, but that's not for everyone. I just like to let certain people know what part of the body they most resemble.
I have 2 small dogs that are well behaved, come when called and don't chase wildlife (except squirrels!).
I live in the countryside and see people's children littering, vandalising and sometimes attempting to injure wildlife or picking flowers for "fun". And then there are adults who drive off-road, throw beer cans from their cars and have barbeques and get drunk wherever it pleases them.
In my experience, wildlife are far more distubed when there are humans about than a small well behaved dog. Do you people have any right wing attitudes on how to ban this sort of nuisance?
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
Posted by Robert Fisher on November 10, 2006 at 11:26 AM
David, while your dogs are well behaved, many others are not. While your dogs come when called, many others do not. There is still the possibility that the dog may still step on something it shouldn't, destroy a nest or break eggs of a ground nesting bird.
I would agree with you that children running around can do as much or more harm and this is where the issue of responsible parenting comes in. Too many parents abdicate their responsibility for the behaviour of their children to be sure. While dogs are valued family members in most cases they can be left alone without a lot of problem, again in most cases. Not so children. In addition, taking children to a nature park or wildlife preserve area can be a very educational experience if it's dealt with properly. Not so with dogs. David, from your response here I get the feeling that you would be one of those dog owners who would react negatively and perhaps in a confrontational manner if someone were to politely point out to you that your dog was not permitted to be off leash in a certain area. If that is the case, you are part of the problem and I would suggest to you that trying to be part of the solution is the better approach. There are laws against the other types of actions and activity you outlined David so there is already a method of banning these in place. Police are not always around when a banned action occurs but you, as a citizen, are also free to take action if you wish. You can, lawfully, make a citizen's arrest. You can also report the offender(s) to police with a license number or some other identifier and the police can record it for future reference. If the illegal act is serious enough, they can issue a BOLO.
The way to deal with the problem of children running around in areas where they shouldn't is the same as dealing with a dog owner who has brought a dog where it's not permitted or is letting the dog run off leash where it's not permitted to do so. Speak to the person in a non-confrontational manner. Ask them if they're aware of the rules. If they are not, they may say thank you and amend their behaviour. They may get angry and tell you to do something that would not be overly pleasant. In those cases, simply walk away and deal with it by informing the operators of the park of the situation. Taking their photo is probably not the recommended approach because you may end up with someone trying to take your camera or otherwise harm you physically. In the case of two little old ladies, there's probably not a lot they can do to you but still.....
With respect to service dogs, yes they are permitted to be with their owner where other dogs are not. Nothing wrong with that. If a service dog is working; however, I think it would be highly unlikely that the dog is bounding around off leash or even walking off leash at a heel.
I love my dog and I take her with me whenever I can. I don't take her when I'm on a photography outing because it's simply not practical. Having had to pull her ass out of a lake because she couldn't climb up the vertical breakwall after jumping in once and nearly losing my camera in the lake as a result, I don't want to have to do that again. Live and learn. My dog is well trained and when off leash under my command will not chase a cat or squirrel or rabbit unless I release her. If we're in a large field that was off leash and I let her run she quite likely would chase but that's a different situation. That said, I won't take her into an area where dogs aren't permitted. If there is any doubt, I call ahead to determine if dogs are allowed. Even when we're walking along a path or side street I don't take her leash off. She drags it on the ground behind her so that I can step on it quickly if need be to stop her (I've had to to that twice in 6 years and those were in the first year I had her).
What it comes down to is taking responsibility for our own actions and too many people don't today. This attitude of entitlement has become far too pervasive. How do we turn it around? Educate. Talk rationally and calmly with people. If that doesn't work, it's up to you to choose whether you escalate the matter with them directly or with the appropriate authority.
Posted by Fred Stearns on November 10, 2006 at 11:03 PM
I heard another problem with domestic dogs while I was in Yellowstone in September. It appears that the wolf population has taken a terrible hit as a result of these pets, which were, as far as I could tell, well behaved. One was where the wolves ate a dog that got into their way. The dog was sick. I believe that it had distemper and that took care of most of the wolf pack. The other problem is harder to actually pin point. It seems that there is a desease that only a few domestic dogs actually get, but all are carriers. The wolves are not so lucky. This desease, whose name I do not remember, is transmitted through the dog's stool. Since wolves, being canines, sniff stool. They get the desease and there goes more of the population.
Unfortunately, it is not only the dogs that are allowed to run free that cause the problems, but even well behaved dogs with responsible owners. Can you be sure that you have scooped ALL of their poop? It may only be a matter of time before the wolves become immune to these deseases, but only time will tell.
Posted by David J Slater on November 16, 2006 at 11:46 AM
Dear Robert,
Thank you for teaching me how to talk to people, to remain calm, and most of all believe in your world where louts, vandals and yobs may say "thank you" for me taking the time to point out the law to them. I must have been doing it wrong on the many occasions I've tried.
The result of patronisation in my experience is an increase in rebellion and vandalism. Verbal attacks are common and others have been assualted. Here in the UK, we have what I assume is your BOLO. We have the AntiSocialBehaviourOrder. It is now being acknowledged by the police (we told them from the outset!) that these would become badges of honour. This is the real world.
Anyway, I think you miss the deeper meaning of my post. This is that humans are far more disruptive, behaved or not, to wildlife and the environment. After all, my dog hasn't contributed to global warming (if you believe in all the lies and spin about that). My dogs are no worse at damaging things than the fox, deer, badger etc that you no doubt accept in your precious nature reserve. That argument simply has not been thought through.
Taking your environmetalism to the limit should see a ban on humans from sensitive places. Many advocate this. Nevertheless, I disagree. I see humans as part of the ecosystem. Man has dogs. Man wants to enjoy his planet and if he wishes to do that with his loving companion he should be able to do so.
If you ban dogs you should ban humans. If dogs need a leash then so do humans (especially children).
Of course, I'm not advocating a free for all. I just want to point out that dogs are not a problem, people are. The natural world will not improve the slightest if we exterminate all dogs. Dog owners DO know if thir dog is uncontrollable and DO know when their dog's actions are antisocial through barking, running, crapping, etc. I hope these owners do control their dog appropriately. The idea that dogs do more damage to the environment than humans or other species is a nonsense and we should not persecute dogs and their owners on these grounds.
To reply to Fred, Badgers, deer, humans, all transmit disease to the wider environment. In the long term, this is actually beneficial in terms of immunity and natural selection. Chimps are one example of a species we can kill by merely being in their presence. If we ban dogs from sharing the wolf's habitat then we should ban humans from the African rainforests.
By the way, what about cats (and their toxicaria). I see these using nature reserves as hunting grounds regularly. Shall I ask the policeman to slap a BOLO on the cat owner as well?
You see, I don't think in the black and white, the "your either with us or a terrorist" mentality at all. Sadly it seems, there are many who do and this polarisation, without evidence or logic, is very dangerous as we all know. This dog argument is a trivial example of this but it is the thin end of a political wedge that will diviide and rule us (yes, us in the west) in the near future.
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
Posted by Robert Fisher on November 16, 2006 at 3:00 PM
Sorry David, I don't think in black and white either, quite frankly. I didn't say that all attempts at being reasonable with people who flout the rules is going to work but it's a better approach than being confrontational right out of the gate. I also said that "some" would react positively and admitted that some would react negatively. With respect to people having been verbally and physically assaulted and your Anti-Social Behaviour Order being regarded as a badge of honour I only have to say look at your footy fans and one can understand that.
I agree that the dog is not the sole problem and that the dog owner is the starting point. That said, why not act as a responsible dog owner and pay attention to the rules rather than openly and aggressively flouting them because you don't happen to agree with them. Wildlife (wolves, foxes, badgers, etc.) are not nearly as harmful as dogs I would suggest. As wild animals and part of the ecosystem there is a symbiosis that exists. When you insert an different player (human, dog, whatever) that symbiosis can be upset. Park or nature reserve personnel place paths through sensitive areas for people to walk on so as to minimise the impact of our presence on the ecosystem. I agree with you that there are irresponsible dog owners who will let their dogs run off leash and there are irresponsible non-dog owners who will not keep to the paths. But taking the approach that because others do it I should do it is a mistake. Be an example to others of the positive approach. What's wrong with that? Is it going to work 100% of the time? No. Is it better than the 'if you can't beat them join them' approach? Yes. Should domestic cats be in the area? No. Unfortunately cats are treated differently from dogs under the laws of many jurisdictions and permitted to run free. Is that right? In my opinion no. But the way to deal with that is to try to effect changes in the laws, not to say 'if it's alright for cats it's alright for MY dogs'.
You're also trying to make your argument by connecting issues that are not connected. Global warming, greenhouse gasses (myth or not and that's an entirely separate discussion) are not going to be impacted by people walking through a nature reserve. So no, I haven't missed your bigger meaning. Your bigger meaning is meaningless in the context of this particular discussion, in my view. I think, frankly, that you are missing the very explicit point I made about personal responsibility. You do not, apparently, take personal responsibility because others do not or because you think you are not part of the problem. That approach is the entire reason for the problem. It's not a matter of being 'with us or agin us'. It's a matter of taking responsibility and using better methods to effect the necessary change. It's not a political wedge at all.
There is an area in the northern part of Ontario (the province I live in) that is known for the many different species of orchids that grow there. Some of these only grow in this area. On a particular island, one species of orchids (not indigenous) grows quite plentifully but it's a species that is extremely sensitive and walking on them can kill them for years (they can take up to 20 years to come to full bloom). It is a protected area and where these orchids grow there are clearly marked paths. It is called the Calypso Orchid and grows only on Flowerpot Island in this particular region. Given this, why would you take your dog into this area and allow it to walk off leash? Because other wildlife does it? Perhaps other wildlife doesn't. Perhaps other wildlife instinctively stays away from these orchids. Even if other wildlife did walk in these areas why would you purposefully, wantonly and proudly contribute to the increased harm of these orchids?
Discussion
19 repliesI love this park because every step you take you hear SOMETHING rustling in the grass or reeds beside you. I hate the thought of a dog disturbing anything on the sides of these carefully marked paths. I don't want to come across as crazy/mean nature girl! If the dog wasn't on a leash, I would feel no remorse at being a raving 'get out of here' lunatic but this seemed a little more difficult. Any advice on how to deal with it?
Guy
As for confronting the irresponsible, it may be safer for you to keep quiet unless your intuition is good enough to determine the type of person you are dealing with. I had to learn the hard way: slashed tires.
Good Luck and safety first!
Jack
When I had a dog, I enjoyed taking her on hikes out in the wild blue yonder, or a walk around the block but I wouldn't ever take her in a protected animal place or let her roam free when anyone else was around (even in the neighbourhood)
Interesting, Jack, that they enforced that rule at the university & the dog walkers lost their priveleges. Guess that has to happen!
Debbie, lol, I hear ya on the child leash law
In general, people who will bring a dog (let alone a loose dog) to a park that restricts dogs do not understand (and may not want to understand, or care about) the damage dogs can do. This is likely to be the same person who thinks picking "just one" flower won't hurt anything, or sliding down from one switchback to another instead of walking the trail isn't really a problem. (And yes, some parents are like that, too.) Even in non-park areas, dog owners are likely to think their dog's needs and wants trump other peoples' convenience--and even lives. Where I live, loose dogs attack livestock and have attacked and killed people--and dog owners routinely insist that *their* loose dog would never do something like that, or that the problem is "exaggerated."
I like dogs; I've owned dogs...but dogs don't belong in parks where their behavior interferes with the intended use of the park...whether it's preserving a fragile flora or leaving nesting birds undisturbed. Some areas can withstand dogs on a leash, at a reasonably low density, but others can't.
Elizabeth
However, I'd like to make an additional comment: there's a ravine near my house with a public pathway in it. This ravine is listed on the city's website as being part of the "Parks for Paws" program. That means it is officially listed as an "off-leash" area. But there is not a single sign in the ravine, or at any of its entrances, that says that. The city sends a list of off-leash parks to all dog owners each year with their licence renewals, but the non-dog-owners don't get this, unless they go looking for it. (And since about half the dogs I see down there are on leash, I suspect that many dog owners don't read it, either!) Every time I walk my dog there off leash, and pass someone without a dog (or with a dog on a leash), I wonder if they think I'm ignoring the city's general rules about dogs on leashes. Nobody has ever said anything to me, though.
My point: sometimes the rules (or exceptions to the rules) aren't posted!
-Paul
This doesn't mean we would take the dog out in the middle of a wildlife breeding ground or distrub nesting or animal habitat. We also carry enough poop bags to bag most of the poop that all of the other people that don't clean up after their dogs leave as well as our own.
A person does not have to be blind to have a service dog. My wife's are mobility assistance dogs. Nor do service dogs have to have capes or harnesses on (ours usually wears a harness or a cape though) to prove they are a service dog. You will find them on a leash of some kind though. While a service dog does not have the right to mis-behave, threaten or tear up, they do have the right to go just about anywhere their human partener goes.
So if you see someone in an area like this, you could ask them if their dog is their service dog (key word, "their" service dog. It's only a service dog when it's helping the person that is entitled to a service dog). If they say no, then you could politely say that as far as you know, pet dogs are not allowed in the area. If they say yes, then there is really nothing you can do, since they don't have to prove they are entitled to a service dog. Someone in authority can ask certain other questions (like what kind of service does the dog perform) and if the dog is not behaving, the ranger or whomever can ask them to remove their dog.
We spent some good quality time with the new director of the Tillimook Forest Center that just opened a few weeks ago. We had been stopped by most of his staff about her dog as we went through the facility. My wife gave him a lot of pointers about people with service dogs about how he and his staff can interact with them and deal with people that try to bring their dogs in that are not service dogs.
Since we deal a lot with service dog related issues, we'll both be the first to agree that not all service dogs are as well behaved as they should be. Nor, in some cases, are the owners of these dogs. In most cases a dog can be trained, not always so with the human.
If you are ever in one of the Oregon parks and see someone with what looks like a hairy small black bear, that will probably be my wife and one of her Bouvier des Flandres service dogs. There aren't many of them being used as service dogs, but they are naturals at it.
Mike
I have seen a few Bouviers in my day & totally know that they look like a small black bear! My parents live in the boonies & someone 'hiked' thru their yard one day with a Bouvier & they took it for a bear cub at first!! (which wouldn't be uncommon to see) Lovable things they are though!
On another note we can't complain about the apathy of younger generations towards the environment and conservation and want them to just stay home also. Parents should use good sense about where they take their kids but they should take them outdoors more wether they are quiet or not.(yes I have children).
and if they make a hassle out of it, then I'd let them know that if they do not remove the animal I would report them, and since I have NO regard for such people, I would!
- - The problem after all is the owners who think the rules apply to everyone but them, and that is usually becuse they have no respect for much of anything anyway. It's not much different than dog owners who take their animals for a walk to crap in other people's yards so that they don't have to clean it up in their own.
You had a camera with you and did the exact right thing, as more people should. Or at least half of it.
Take the peoples picture BUT ALSO let them know that you will be giving a copy of it to the park management for a sitation if they are ever seen in there again.
- - - You can not do anything about the ignorant low-lifes in this world, but you can make some of them pay for it. I've also never been one to not speak my mind about what I think of some people, but that's not for everyone. I just like to let certain people know what part of the body they most resemble.
I have 2 small dogs that are well behaved, come when called and don't chase wildlife (except squirrels!).
I live in the countryside and see people's children littering, vandalising and sometimes attempting to injure wildlife or picking flowers for "fun". And then there are adults who drive off-road, throw beer cans from their cars and have barbeques and get drunk wherever it pleases them.
In my experience, wildlife are far more distubed when there are humans about than a small well behaved dog. Do you people have any right wing attitudes on how to ban this sort of nuisance?
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
I would agree with you that children running around can do as much or more harm and this is where the issue of responsible parenting comes in. Too many parents abdicate their responsibility for the behaviour of their children to be sure. While dogs are valued family members in most cases they can be left alone without a lot of problem, again in most cases. Not so children. In addition, taking children to a nature park or wildlife preserve area can be a very educational experience if it's dealt with properly. Not so with dogs. David, from your response here I get the feeling that you would be one of those dog owners who would react negatively and perhaps in a confrontational manner if someone were to politely point out to you that your dog was not permitted to be off leash in a certain area. If that is the case, you are part of the problem and I would suggest to you that trying to be part of the solution is the better approach. There are laws against the other types of actions and activity you outlined David so there is already a method of banning these in place. Police are not always around when a banned action occurs but you, as a citizen, are also free to take action if you wish. You can, lawfully, make a citizen's arrest. You can also report the offender(s) to police with a license number or some other identifier and the police can record it for future reference. If the illegal act is serious enough, they can issue a BOLO.
The way to deal with the problem of children running around in areas where they shouldn't is the same as dealing with a dog owner who has brought a dog where it's not permitted or is letting the dog run off leash where it's not permitted to do so. Speak to the person in a non-confrontational manner. Ask them if they're aware of the rules. If they are not, they may say thank you and amend their behaviour. They may get angry and tell you to do something that would not be overly pleasant. In those cases, simply walk away and deal with it by informing the operators of the park of the situation. Taking their photo is probably not the recommended approach because you may end up with someone trying to take your camera or otherwise harm you physically. In the case of two little old ladies, there's probably not a lot they can do to you but still.....
With respect to service dogs, yes they are permitted to be with their owner where other dogs are not. Nothing wrong with that. If a service dog is working; however, I think it would be highly unlikely that the dog is bounding around off leash or even walking off leash at a heel.
I love my dog and I take her with me whenever I can. I don't take her when I'm on a photography outing because it's simply not practical. Having had to pull her ass out of a lake because she couldn't climb up the vertical breakwall after jumping in once and nearly losing my camera in the lake as a result, I don't want to have to do that again.
What it comes down to is taking responsibility for our own actions and too many people don't today. This attitude of entitlement has become far too pervasive. How do we turn it around? Educate. Talk rationally and calmly with people. If that doesn't work, it's up to you to choose whether you escalate the matter with them directly or with the appropriate authority.
Unfortunately, it is not only the dogs that are allowed to run free that cause the problems, but even well behaved dogs with responsible owners. Can you be sure that you have scooped ALL of their poop? It may only be a matter of time before the wolves become immune to these deseases, but only time will tell.
Thank you for teaching me how to talk to people, to remain calm, and most of all believe in your world where louts, vandals and yobs may say "thank you" for me taking the time to point out the law to them. I must have been doing it wrong on the many occasions I've tried.
The result of patronisation in my experience is an increase in rebellion and vandalism. Verbal attacks are common and others have been assualted. Here in the UK, we have what I assume is your BOLO. We have the AntiSocialBehaviourOrder. It is now being acknowledged by the police (we told them from the outset!) that these would become badges of honour. This is the real world.
Anyway, I think you miss the deeper meaning of my post. This is that humans are far more disruptive, behaved or not, to wildlife and the environment. After all, my dog hasn't contributed to global warming (if you believe in all the lies and spin about that). My dogs are no worse at damaging things than the fox, deer, badger etc that you no doubt accept in your precious nature reserve. That argument simply has not been thought through.
Taking your environmetalism to the limit should see a ban on humans from sensitive places. Many advocate this. Nevertheless, I disagree. I see humans as part of the ecosystem. Man has dogs. Man wants to enjoy his planet and if he wishes to do that with his loving companion he should be able to do so.
If you ban dogs you should ban humans. If dogs need a leash then so do humans (especially children).
Of course, I'm not advocating a free for all. I just want to point out that dogs are not a problem, people are. The natural world will not improve the slightest if we exterminate all dogs. Dog owners DO know if thir dog is uncontrollable and DO know when their dog's actions are antisocial through barking, running, crapping, etc. I hope these owners do control their dog appropriately. The idea that dogs do more damage to the environment than humans or other species is a nonsense and we should not persecute dogs and their owners on these grounds.
To reply to Fred, Badgers, deer, humans, all transmit disease to the wider environment. In the long term, this is actually beneficial in terms of immunity and natural selection. Chimps are one example of a species we can kill by merely being in their presence. If we ban dogs from sharing the wolf's habitat then we should ban humans from the African rainforests.
By the way, what about cats (and their toxicaria). I see these using nature reserves as hunting grounds regularly. Shall I ask the policeman to slap a BOLO on the cat owner as well?
You see, I don't think in the black and white, the "your either with us or a terrorist" mentality at all. Sadly it seems, there are many who do and this polarisation, without evidence or logic, is very dangerous as we all know. This dog argument is a trivial example of this but it is the thin end of a political wedge that will diviide and rule us (yes, us in the west) in the near future.
Dave
Forest of Dean, UK
I agree that the dog is not the sole problem and that the dog owner is the starting point. That said, why not act as a responsible dog owner and pay attention to the rules rather than openly and aggressively flouting them because you don't happen to agree with them. Wildlife (wolves, foxes, badgers, etc.) are not nearly as harmful as dogs I would suggest. As wild animals and part of the ecosystem there is a symbiosis that exists. When you insert an different player (human, dog, whatever) that symbiosis can be upset. Park or nature reserve personnel place paths through sensitive areas for people to walk on so as to minimise the impact of our presence on the ecosystem. I agree with you that there are irresponsible dog owners who will let their dogs run off leash and there are irresponsible non-dog owners who will not keep to the paths. But taking the approach that because others do it I should do it is a mistake. Be an example to others of the positive approach. What's wrong with that? Is it going to work 100% of the time? No. Is it better than the 'if you can't beat them join them' approach? Yes. Should domestic cats be in the area? No. Unfortunately cats are treated differently from dogs under the laws of many jurisdictions and permitted to run free. Is that right? In my opinion no. But the way to deal with that is to try to effect changes in the laws, not to say 'if it's alright for cats it's alright for MY dogs'.
You're also trying to make your argument by connecting issues that are not connected. Global warming, greenhouse gasses (myth or not and that's an entirely separate discussion) are not going to be impacted by people walking through a nature reserve. So no, I haven't missed your bigger meaning. Your bigger meaning is meaningless in the context of this particular discussion, in my view. I think, frankly, that you are missing the very explicit point I made about personal responsibility. You do not, apparently, take personal responsibility because others do not or because you think you are not part of the problem. That approach is the entire reason for the problem. It's not a matter of being 'with us or agin us'. It's a matter of taking responsibility and using better methods to effect the necessary change. It's not a political wedge at all.
There is an area in the northern part of Ontario (the province I live in) that is known for the many different species of orchids that grow there. Some of these only grow in this area. On a particular island, one species of orchids (not indigenous) grows quite plentifully but it's a species that is extremely sensitive and walking on them can kill them for years (they can take up to 20 years to come to full bloom). It is a protected area and where these orchids grow there are clearly marked paths. It is called the Calypso Orchid and grows only on Flowerpot Island in this particular region. Given this, why would you take your dog into this area and allow it to walk off leash? Because other wildlife does it? Perhaps other wildlife doesn't. Perhaps other wildlife instinctively stays away from these orchids. Even if other wildlife did walk in these areas why would you purposefully, wantonly and proudly contribute to the increased harm of these orchids?