davis_square | To Hershey's Dog-Mom

Hey, there are also people on I-93 who continue to drive more than 55 MPH despite all of the speed limit signs, and despite being told several times by cops (human being control officers?) that they can't do that.

There are irresponsible people out there. Some drive recklessly. Some allow their dogs to run off-leash despite a lack of proper training or a history of dangerous behavior. Some chit-chat casually while their dogs sprint in front of oncoming bikes. Determining a safe highway speed that's appropriate given current conditions, and determining when it's appropriate/inappropriate to provide Rover some off-leash time are both subjective decisions. Not all people can be trusted to make subjective decisions responsibly, so you need a law to restrict irresponsible behavior. And laws need to be worded objectively. So our society has created hard-and-fast rules that restrict the behavior of everyone -- responsible and irresponsible alike. These rules are probably overly restrictive for 90% of people 90% of the time, and they tend to be enforced very selectively.

Personally, I don't think it's justifiable or useful to scold people just because they broke a law. Save your bile for people who behave irresponsibly. And maybe introspect for a moment and ask yourself whether you ever drive 38 in a 35 zone or (for non-car-people) violate other clearly posted laws.

Here is a startling admission: I am a chronic, unrepentant off-leash dog walker and I often walk my dog near Lexington Park. There are frankly very few options for places to let a dog off-leash in somerville and my dog needs a lot of exercise. Here's my policy: I try to walk him early in the morning when the bike path is empty, and if I need to walk him at 'rush hour' I do keep him leashed. I watch carefully for bikes and joggers and keep my dog out of their way. I leash him whenever he's approaching a dog he doesn't know, out of courtesy to the owner. I pick up after him every time. I don't allow him to get too rambunctious unless he is way out of the way of bike path traffic and other people. I wouldn't even consider letting him off-leash if he wasn't well-behaved and friendly with all people. Actually, he mostly minds his own business and sniffs inanimate objects along the side of the path. I have never had a run-in where he jumped in front of a bike or otherwise behaved dangerously toward people on the path. Honestly -- if you watched me walk my dog, I think you would be hard-pressed to explain how he is posing a threat to anyone.

So please -- go ahead and call people out for being irresponsible. Even mildly irresponsible. But I don't think people should make the blanket statement that it's ALWAYS irresponsible/unethical/dangerous to allow your dog off leash in an urban environment -- all dogs, all places, at all times, all situations.

Two other things:

@ nuns -- "Signs are good. Animal control officers patrolling the area and doling out tickets, and revoking dog licenses, are even better." What do you mean by "revoking dog licenses"? Are you saying that someone who's caught with a dog off-leash would have to either euthanize their pet or move from Somerville? Isn't that a little bit harsh? And aren't there more pressing items on the crime blotter? Say break-ins, rampant bike theft, etc?

@ all you cyclists -- with all this talk about slamming on the brakes, etc it might be worth pointing out that the bike path is a park, it's not a highway for bikes. As with any park, there are a lot of kids around and kids can be every bit as unpredictable as dogs. As a parent, I try to keep my toddlers away from the bike traffic, but mutual awareness is important. Most cyclists are great, but there are a few who act like they own the path and anything that causes them to slow down from 20 mph is an affront. I can definitely see how dogs sprinting out from behind a tree would be dangerous, but it's also dangerous to drive your bike so fast that accidents are only narrowly avoided.

Personally, I don't think it's justifiable or useful to scold people just because they broke a law. Save your bile for people who behave irresponsibly. And maybe introspect for a moment and ask yourself whether you ever drive 38 in a 35 zone or (for non-car-people) violate other clearly posted laws.

It's perfectly justifiable to scold someone who has broken a law - specifically one that applies to safeguard both animal and human safety. Your example of a 4 mile-over infraction is laughable.

If you walk your dog near Lexington Park and are looking for off-leash fun, why not go down to Nunziato, which is just about a mile away?

But I don't think people should make the blanket statement that it's ALWAYS irresponsible/unethical/dangerous to allow your dog off leash in an urban environment -- all dogs, all places, at all times, all situations.

First off, I was commenting on a specific incident - which occurred in the afternoon during high traffic - in a specific location - the bike-path, where dogs are required by law to be on a leash. Dogs on the bike path should be on-leash. If you don't agree, work to get the law changed. But by flaunting the law, you give other dog owners a bad name, and encourage other owners to ignore the law and let their dogs - possibly less well behaved than your own - off-leash.

As I've observed in other comments, I've seen plenty of other examples of poor bike path etiquette - I've seen little kids get in the way, wandering around poorly supervised, people on roller-blades going crazy-fast dart between lanes without pause, runners running the WRONG WAY and random people just standing in the path not moving. The problem isn't the dogs, the problem is people's lack of respect for the rules of use.

The rider who nearly had an accident was not going excessively fast. The dog wandered over from the other side of the road, and he stopped about two feet short - but yes, leaning hard on his brakes because the dog came from off the path from behind a tree..

I love dogs. I want to get a dog as soon as I move into my new place not far off the bike path. But I recognize that my part as a responsible dog owner is to keep the dog on-leash, and visit the dog park for happy off-leash running around.

OP wrote: "Dogs on the bike path should be on-leash. If you don't agree, work to get the law changed. But by flaunting the law, you give other dog owners a bad name, and encourage other owners to ignore the law and let their dogs - possibly less well behaved than your own - off-leash."

Replace this paragraph with "Cars on the highway should never, ever be driven faster than 55 mph. If you don't agree, work to get the law changed. But by flaunting the law, you give other drivers a bad name, and encourage other drivers -- perhaps less skilled drivers -- to exceed the speed limit too."

You seem to agree with me that it's laughable to scold somebody just because they violated the speed limit. There would have to be more to the story -- that they were driving recklessly, they were driving 95, they were weaving in and out of cars like "Smokey and the Bandit", it was late at night, it was raining cats and dogs, they were in a school zone, etc. It's the circumstances that lead you to call them out: adding it all up, they weren't driving responsibly and it was unsafe (or a even just a nuisance). When it comes to speeding, it seems laughable in our society to say "driving above the speed limit is wrong because it's breaking the law". Maybe I'd tell that story to my toddlers, but the adult world isn't so black and white.

I would put leash laws in exactly the same category. Like speed limits, leash laws are blanket rules intended to promote safety and prevent nuisance behavior. And just as you can be a responsible driver who sometimes goes 60 in a 55 zone, you can be a responsible dog owner who sometimes allows your dog off-leash despite the posted leash law.

Don't get me wrong: I think all of us (myself included) have had bad experiences with dog owners on the bike path. Please don't misunderstand me as someone who is advocating for irresponsible behavior. There are all kinds of circumstances that merit leashing your dog and this thread has probably touched on them all. I keep my dog leashed a lot of the time for exactly these reasons, and would agree with you for calling people out for not being responsible dog owners. But I don't agree that it's as black-and-white as saying "my part as a responsible dog owner is to keep the dog on-leash" any more than I think that always driving under the speed limit is a necessary condition for being a responsible driver.

if you're speeding, as far as the law is concerned (and your insurance company, should you get caught), you aren't a responsible driver.

The situation in the section by lexington park is a regular nuisance, around the time most people are getting out of work, when the path traffic is high.

There are dogs off leash, under zero control, who regularly run back and forth across the path - which is what dogs want to do, run.

The owners have been talked to about it, and have been overheard to say "I don't care how often they call animal control, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing."

That's beyond irresponsible, that's intentional culpability.

Forget the insurance company. Do YOU personally consider me to be an irresponsible driver simply because I tell you that I sometimes intentionally drive over the posted speed limit? (Even by 1 mph?)

I think most people in our society would not only say no, but would consider the question ridiculous. And yet everyone in this thread seems to believe that keeping your dog on a leash in public places (even if nobody else is there) is one of the pillars of responsible dog ownership. And that allowing your dog off-leash on the bike path is automatically and unconditionally an irresponsible act.

Yes, I do think you are irresponsible for it.

Okay, point noted. You're obviously entitled to think that.

Out of curiosity, do you think I'm irresponsible for selectively driving over the speed limit, or for selectively walking the dog off-leash, or both? And if your answer is only for off-leash walking, then what makes walking a dog off-leash different from driving over the speed limit? For example, walking a well-behaved dog off-leash on a quiet, early morning where the bike path is totally deserted ... vs driving 2 miles over the speed limit on an open stretch of highway. Personally, I view these situations as being pretty equivalent.

(no subject)

pierceheart.livejournal.com - 2008-07-14 21:26 (UTC) - Expand

the bike path is a park

Dogs are banned from city parks and playgrounds, except where specifically authorized.
Do you really want to use "the path is a park" as your justification?

I think that was changed a few years ago from "dogs are banned" to "dogs must be leashed". The signs on the bike path changed to reflect this.

Thanks for the info, Ron!

i'm not going to comment on the dog issue -- i don't really have an opinion. just wanted to say that even those of us going really slow (i am a turtle-pace cyclist) are still going 12-15 miles an hour, very leisurely pace. that's still enough to injure someone or a dog if there's a collision. =/ i've never had any problems with dogs leashed or unleashed on the path but i'd hate to see someone's pet get injured.

But I don't think people should make the blanket statement that it's ALWAYS irresponsible/unethical/dangerous to allow your dog off leash in an urban environment -- all dogs, all places, at all times, all situations.

It's always irresponsible to have any dog off leash in any place where it's illegal to do so.

By "revoking dog licenses" I mean that people who are not responsible enough to own dogs should not be allowed to own dogs. I never said anything about euthanizing dogs or moving.

By "revoking dog licenses" I mean that people who are not responsible enough to own dogs should not be allowed to own dogs.

So, how you intend to enforce them not being allowed to own dogs, if they already have them?

That's a fine question, and I am sure that someone with a public policy background would be better equipped to offer solutions than I am. That doesn't change the fact that owning a pet is a privilege, and there are circumstances under which that privilege should be revoked.

If the only way to take a person's dog away is to kill the dog, then obviously that won't work. But if that's the case, there should be training required to get a dog license in the first place.

Under most circumstances, a hefty fine should do the trick. That's why I stared with "issuing tickets".

That's a fine question, and I am sure that someone with a public policy background would be better equipped to offer solutions than I am. That doesn't change the fact that owning a pet is a privilege, and there are circumstances under which that privilege should be revoked.

Sorry, but you proposed the solution of revoking the privilege, so, you need to come up with what your solution to it would be.

Otherwise, you're basically saying "here's this idea, I don't know how to make it work, but go for it" and dropping the mess in someone else's lap.

Well, dropping the mess into the lap of someone trained to deal with it.

But ok, I'll give it a shot. If you revoke someone's dog license, and they don't find another home for the dog, then they have an unlicensed dog. I assume there are consequences for having an unlicensed dog. Let's apply those.

Also, I bet even you don't believe that it's always bad to point out a problem that you aren't immediately equipped to solve. Or to start in on a solution, however incomplete, without being able to provide a full solution.

I just think that people who routinely endanger their pets and the people around them through irresponsible pet-ownership should not be allowed to own pets. Do you disagree? If so, on what basis?

I was baffled by the jump from "tickets and license revocations" to "euthanasia or exile". Until I recognized it for what it was: an attempt to make ME into the cruel person, rather than the person who is willing to keep a dog that requires lots of space in a place that can't provide lots of space.

If it's cruel to force a dog to live in too-little space, then don't. But don't make me into the bad guy for expecting adherence to basic safety precautions, when those precautions actually CAN protect both the dogs and the people.

Nuns: "I just think that people who routinely endanger their pets and the people around them through irresponsible pet-ownership should not be allowed to own pets."

Well, we certainly have no disagreement there. Two questions though: (1) how did we get from a discussion of people with unleashed dogs on the bike path to "people who routinely endanger their pets and the people around them"? That seems like quite a leap. (2) Who establishes whether a pet owner is irresponsible? Taking someone's pet away -- or forcing them to move out of town -- these are both very stiff penalties, so there would need to be a pretty iron-clad test to determine whether some threshold of irresponsibility has been exceeded. Your thoughts?

Sorry that the jump from "license revocation" to "euthanasia or exile" baffled you. I thought it was pretty obvious that if you revoke a pet license that the owner cannot continue own the pet, at least not in Somerville. I certainly wasn't trying to make you into a cruel person, I was just trying to point out that it didn't sound like you had thought through the ramifications of your comment.

(no subject)

nuns.livejournal.com - 2008-07-14 19:44 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

buckturgidsen.livejournal.com - 2008-07-14 20:05 (UTC) - Expand

What does the town do when people have dogs but do not have dog licenses? I presume the same thing would get done in cases where a dog license gets revoked.

They fine them, heavily.

Perfect. Let's do that.

Personally, I don't think it's justifiable or useful to scold people just because they broke a law. Save your bile for people who behave irresponsibly.

The thing is, people who aren't used to doing a particular activity don't necessarily know what the hazards are. I've never owned a dog, so I don't know what parts of the world look hazardous to a dog owner; if I use my own judgment rather than obeying the laws, there's a good chance I'll do something that strikes a dog owner as irresponsibly dangerous. And, in my experience, people who haven't used bicycles for transportation have absolutely no idea what looks hazardous to a cyclist (and their ideas are often the opposite of the truth); when they use *their* judgment, they create hazards. And then everyone is yelling at each other and saying "WTF? I wasn't doing anything wrong! Why'd they fly off the handle?" when they're not saying "Damn you, you almost killed me!" And it's a bad scene.

By all means the rules need to be created by people who are familiar with people's actual usage, and if the rules don't reflect safe and pleasant use they should be revised. But given that, yes, it is irresponsible to break them.

Hey, there are also people on I-93 who continue to drive more than 55 MPH despite all of the speed limit signs, and despite being told several times by cops (human being control officers?) that they can't do that.

Yes, and they get fined for it, regularly.
They also don't take it out on other drivers, and they don't threaten the state police for doing their job.

They also face other consequences - like insurance hikes.
So, you know what, let's get homeowners and renters insurances to raise their rates if dogowners get fined for violating the leash law.