ext_22958 ([identity profile] enochs-fable.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] davis_square2008-07-14 09:23 am
Entry tags:

To Hershey's Dog-Mom

If you're taking your adorable chocolate lab out for a stroll on the bike-path on a lovely Sunday afternoon, please protect your dog and other people using the path and keep him on a leash.

I witnessed an almost-accident at close range as the dog ambled from one side of the path to another, forcing a bicyclist to slam on his brakes and stop hard to avoid hitting him.

He doesn't know any better, he's just a dog, doing what dogs do. You, on the other hand, should.

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/ 2008-07-14 02:47 pm (UTC)(link)
I think this might be an issue for the City -- there really should be a clear sign that states all dogs must be on a leash.

I love dogs. I think they are the most wonderful animal in the world. Having volunteered with the ASPCA for three years in NYC, I can also handle most dogs. But that's not the case for everybody.

When you sit down and think about it, loose dogs in a semi-urban area pose a hazard and/or nuisance for:
  • The dogs themselves
  • Pedestrians
  • Small children
  • Cyclists
  • The handicapped
  • Service dogs
  • Other dogs
  • Even motorists
You would think that a person would consider at least one of these points, especially the fact that a loose dog is primarily a hazard to itself, but as with most things in life, stupid people ruin it for the rest of us.

I doubt the perpetrators are reading LJ, and silent rants will do very little. The City (via your Alderman) should be contacted so that signage is clear.
Edited 2008-07-14 14:47 (UTC)

[identity profile] chenoameg.livejournal.com 2008-07-14 02:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Last I checked there were signs on both sides of that stretch of bike path stating that dogs must be on lease.

[identity profile] pierceheart.livejournal.com 2008-07-14 02:55 pm (UTC)(link)
The signs near lexington park USED to say all dogs must be on leash.

They do not anymore.

There need to be signs up saying dogs must be on leashes, and no longer than six feet.

[identity profile] nuns.livejournal.com 2008-07-14 03:06 pm (UTC)(link)
Signs are good. Animal control officers patrolling the area and doling out tickets, and revoking dog licenses, are even better.

[identity profile] pierceheart.livejournal.com 2008-07-14 03:08 pm (UTC)(link)
Considering at least one ACO was threatened by a dog owner with a gun ... (http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/archive/x1817150690)
Edited 2008-07-14 15:09 (UTC)

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/ 2008-07-14 08:13 pm (UTC)(link)
It's too bad they hadn't caught the guy, because really, that's a great way to just dig yourself in deeper.

The article is old, and the dog run at the park near Union Sq. is really wonderful.

[identity profile] pierceheart.livejournal.com 2008-07-14 05:07 pm (UTC)(link)
Sean O'Donovan for the Lexington Park area.

[personal profile] ron_newman 2008-07-14 06:13 pm (UTC)(link)
The boundary between ward 5 (O'Donovan) and 6 (Gewirtz) crosses the bike path exactly at Lexington Park.

[identity profile] pierceheart.livejournal.com 2008-07-14 06:15 pm (UTC)(link)
got it, so, odd side O'Donovan, even side Gewirtz.

[personal profile] ron_newman 2008-07-14 06:11 pm (UTC)(link)
Rebekah Gewirtz (Ward 6) from Davis Square to Thorndike Street. Bob Trane (Ward 7) from Thorndike Street to the Cambridge line.

Somerville ward and precinct map

[identity profile] buckturgidsen.livejournal.com 2008-07-14 07:59 pm (UTC)(link)
This is too much of a blanket statement. Loose dogs (my dog would be so offended you called him loose!!) CAN indeed pose a hazard/nuisance for all of the entities above. You left off squirrels, prowling cats, the California Condor, and global warming, but otherwise your list is pretty comprehensive.

Whether or not a loose dog is actually likely (or even at any marginal risk) to harm/annoy any of these groups is completely based on circumstances. If I walk my dog alone on the bike path at 6:30am my dog is posing a hazard to nobody. If I'm responsible, I will keep him on a leash whenever he runs the risk of harming/annoying anybody.

[identity profile] http://users.livejournal.com/_mattt/ 2008-07-14 08:06 pm (UTC)(link)
This is the same argument as the one that I don't need to wear my seatbelt because I am a safe driver. If I've never been in an accident and I think I am safe, why should I?

The fallacy is the assumption that because nothing bad has ever happened, nothing ever will.

The owner isn't granted the luxury of analyzing their pet's potential tendancy to cause any of the above problems. It is this attitude that leads to off leash pets in the first place.

Just as the sign (apparently very clearly) says: all dogs belong on leashes, even those far to old to run, and even when no one is around.

[identity profile] buckturgidsen.livejournal.com 2008-07-14 08:50 pm (UTC)(link)
I think what you're saying is that (1) if people aren't capable of properly assessing the risks of a particular behavior (for example by mistakenly assuming that things that have never happened before can't happen) then they may make poor and potentially harmful choices. (I definitely agree with you.)

...and (2) for certain types of decisions, people shouldn't be trusted to make risk assessments and decisions themselves. (Again, definitely agree -- for example we don't trust ordinary people to walk around Somerville carrying handguns no matter how convinced they are that are careful/responsible enough to do so.)

...and (3) the decision to let your dog off-leash is one of these types of decisions.

Both agree and disagree with #3. I get why we have a leash law. I don't trust every dog owner to do the right thing. I believe that parks are first and foremost for people to enjoy and dogs shouldn't be allowed to pose hazards or nuisances for people. I wish we lived in a world where everyone was responsible and considerate of others, but we don't so we need laws.

However I also believe that if a dog-owner is careful and respectful that they can *selectively* let their dog off-leash (even against posted rules) without being irresponsible.

Does this seem hypocritical? I don't think it is. To squeeze a little more juice out of my now-tired metaphor: I sometimes drive over the speed limit and I don't believe this makes me irresponsible ... but I also get why speed limits need to exist and don't support the elimination. My guess is that most people probably feel the same way.

So you can post whatever signs you want. I'll understand why they're there. Certain behavior is unsafe, annoying, or irresponsible. It will be so regardless of whether there are signs and laws. The laws just enable the city to crack down on the bad behavior. But if I am walking my dog off-leash on an empty bike path, I am not going to feel guilty or irresponsible about it. Posting the law won't change this any more than posting another 55 sign on I-93 would make you feel more guilty for driving 60.

[identity profile] buckturgidsen.livejournal.com 2008-07-14 09:07 pm (UTC)(link)
I should add that I truly DO understand why people (esp. people without dogs) would be suspicious of someone effectively saying "trust me, I know what I'm doing." That's one of the reasons I try to be very selective about letting the pup off the leash only when he's out of everyone's way. But I don't expect this to win everyone over, I'm just trying to give a different perspective.