Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
Yesterday, the Board of Health held a public hearing to discuss off-leash laws for dogs in city parks. am New York reported some scurrilous words from "one foe of free pups": "Dogs are simply property." And that, ladies and gentlemen, is when the people went bonkers.
The city is looking to see whether the health code - which says dogs must be leashed in public spaces - should be amended to take into account the Parks Department's 20 year practice of allowing off-leash hours between 9PM and 9AM in various parks without dog runs. The Juniper Park Civic Association of Queens has been fighting to make parks follow the health code and require leashed dogs. JPCA president Robert Holden said, "If [an amendment for off-leash hours] is passed, you're going to see a lot more attacks," and showed phtoographs of dogs running loose all over the park, including one of a dog walker's 10 loose dogs. The dog owners group, NYCDOG, pointed out that "only 2.2 percent of dog bites in the city occur in parks."
According to AMNY, "If the suit goes in favor of the civic association and the health code is not amended, off-leash hours would be outlawed. If the board votes to amend the health code, the dogs would get their off-leash hours no matter what." And the board will vote on the amendment in early December.
Photograph of leafy dog from superterrific on Flickr
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Somebody needs to throw a muzzle on this Holden guy. Grrrrrr....
why don't they compromise? make some parts of the parks off-leash at certain hours and leave other parts subject to leash laws at all hours?
i was running through a rather desolate part of prospect park and almost attacked by a dog that had run ahead of its owner. this would not have happened in more populated areas where the dog would have been more concerned with other dogs, but in the middle of the woods, it got very defensive and scared. people enjoying the park should not be subject to random surprises of off-leash dogs coming at them. limit them to the big lawns where they can run around off-leash just fine.
anyone that keeps a 'pet' in nyc should be caged. if they are domesticated animals, then they should be leashed when outside of the home at all times, period. otherwise they're wild animals with no business in a city.
first person that says their dog is just like a kid gets a kick inn the nuts!
Koch needs to be kicked in the nuts.
Animals like to run and a lot of breeds of dogs get arthritis and other vascular disorders if they don't get to run at a full sprint.
Leash laws: specieism at its finest.
when people are running it triggers the chase prey instinct in dogs. I have a dog a care for more then anything, but i would not trust him off a leash. it is a dog after all. You can't expect a dog to make a rational decison not to chase, bite or run away. The park is not your personal backyard. For anything that happens there is culpablity on the both dog owner and the park operator. The city would be foolish to expose itself to that risk.
>>make some parts of the parks off-leash at certain hours and leave other parts subject to leash laws at all hours?
This is exactly what they do do. There are only three areas of Prospect Park that have off-leash hours. Throughout the rest of the park, dogs must be kept on their leashes. (Rules are here, as well as posted throughout the park).
Pets can be like kids to some people. You cannot say that someone doesn't feel a particular emotion towards another living thing because it's not human.
I would advise the folks, like Koch, who are obviously not experts and not qualified to make the statements that they do, to please refrain from doing so, or at least include a sentence or two at the top, like "the following stems from my own psychoses, so please keep that in mind when reading."
All dogs should be leashed at all time out in public, and maybe even some dog owners as well, IMO.
As long as dogs are only allowed off-leash at certain hours and in certain areas, I don't see why this is such an issue. If an area of the park has off-leash hours in the evening, you shouldn't plan on playing soccer or whatever in that area at that time. Seems like a no brainer. As long as dog owners clean up after their dogs and keep them on-leash at other times, I don't see why this would bother anyone. The dogs in the park bother me a lot less than some of the bikers and skateboarders.
#2, your story about being "almost attacked" is another way of saying "an off-leash dog didn't attack me". Not a particularly compelling argument..
While we're at it... all children should be leashed too... there's a lot more 12 year olds killing people in New York City than people dying of unleashed dog attacks...
For accurate information on the battle to preserve the sucessful 20-year NYC Parks Offleash Hours policy, that has resulted in a historic low rate of dog bites, despite a historic high number of dogs in NYC, visit this website:
NYCoffleash.com
Not only would I join koch in kicking some dog owners but I'll kick the dog in the nuts, too.
The public park is not the backyard for your private animal. Why does your pet deserve a special place? don't the taxpaying citizens of non pet owners have a say? after I kick the dog, I'll eat it.
astro n' dino, how is a tax-paying pet owner different from any other tax payer? How is it different to take up space with a dog area than to take up the same amount of space with a baseball diamond or a kids play area? Not everyone will enjoy every space in the park. That's why the big parks are great- there is enough space for people to enjoy a lot of different activities. Off-leash dogs in a designated area of Prospect Park don't keep anyone from doing other things. If you don't like it, the park is HUGE, you should have no trouble avoiding it. So why not just let them have some space to run and play? Seems like you're just cranky and looking for something to complain about.
Can't we all just get along?
You hate dogs and dog owners? Fine. Don't go in certain areas of the parks from 6-9 AM. You are probably sleeping anyways.
But, if you want to be free from dog bites, this policy makes sense. Dogs that exercise, and play with other dogs, play well with others. Hundreds of peer-reviewed studies show this.
This is only limited hours (9pm to close, opening to 9am), limited locations, and a reasonable accomodation for all - dog owners and non dog owners.
This is good for all New Yorkers too, since bites are down, and people are generally safer when there are people present and vigilant.
Do you honestly think both the NYC Health and Parks Dept's would favor something that would put the public at risk? Quite the contrary, they are making us all safer.
If you think otherwise, perhaps you get out more and get some more exercise and socialization yourself. Perhaps in parks, which have gotten better in the last 20 years thanks to off-leash.
I suppose all the dog crap cleans itself and magically find its way into the sewer system.
This city cares more about dogs than the people who live in it. NOT ME.
YOU better keep your dog away from me or it's Zerex time. not guiliani time.
"#2, your story about being "almost attacked" is another way of saying "an off-leash dog didn't attack me". Not a particularly compelling argument.."
I don't see why that's not a compelling argument. Just because the guy wasn't attacked by a dog doesn't mean the incident didn't have him thinking he was going to be. Had the dog been on a leash, this person wouldn't have had to deal with having somebody's frigging pet run up to him and start barking/growling. I had this happen in DUMBO recently on a run and it sucks. You have no idea whose dog it is, whether the dog bites, etc. There's certain things you expect to put up with in public space in NYC. Getting bitten or pawed at by some jackass's unleashed dog isn't one of them.
"Off-leash dogs in a designated area of Prospect Park don't keep anyone from doing other things. If you don't like it, the park is HUGE, you should have no trouble avoiding it. So why not just let them have some space to run and play? Seems like you're just cranky and looking for something to complain about."
The problem is that dog owners abuse this freedom and let their dog go off-leash in un-designated areas of the park.
This is actually all very simple: Parks are for people. Dogs are not actually people. Leashes keep all dogs - even the sweet ones - under control. And people want to see the non-people under control. Since any person might be a mugger or a rapist, or about to severely injure me, so I must be vigilant, why on earth should I be required to trust that the dog running at me is really just a gentle poochy-poo? So, here we go again: dogs are simply property. They can be bought and sold just like a pair of shoes. So, why do the "unleasher" advocates want their dog to be higher in rank than people? It is not my job to figure out the aggression level of any dog; it is the complete responsibility of the owner to keep his/her dog under complete leash control and away from me and my loved ones. How is that an imposition? Just obey the leash law!
I side with the leash advocates. Too often there have been reports about unleashed dogs attacking parkgoers and smaller dogs, and not just in Juniper Park.
www.forgotten-ny.com
If you guys are done screaming at each other...
Dogs need to be leashed for their own safety and the safety of others. That's just common sense, guys. You want your dog bolting out in the street?
Dogs are not property. They are creatures and family members, so that remark was out of line. But "speciesism"? Please. Stop. If you're really worried about being humane, there are many of us who feel it is inhumane to even keep a dog in a city apartment. But I digress.
Dogs do need off-leash time outdoors. It would seem to me that if you wanted the dogs to spend outdoor off-leash, then why not get a dog run at your park? That would seem to be a better application of your energies than repealing laws that were put there for a reason. The dog run is the place to let 'em run around. The city needs more dog runs.
As far as kicks in the nuts go, I'll toss one to the first person who says the city is going to the dogs.
How do dogs handle mace/pepper spray? Hmm, perhaps I shall experiment this weekend at the park...
How do dogs handle mace/pepper spray? Hmm, perhaps I shall experiment this weekend at the park...
Mr. Peeples say I'll trade you Magilla for a doggie.
I don't know about pepper spray but let use know. There was this mailman who just threw the mail inside our office because the owner's dog would be running a sprint from 50ft away making a beeline towards the mailman. Good thing the mailman was an easy going guy.
I hope the JCPA had some postal workers toward their case.
Let's clarify some things, dogs are not humans; therefore please refrain from attempting to assign them equivalent rights.
Yes, they are living creatures and deserve to be respected by the superior human species.
No, they are not property or family members, unless you're making sexy time with them Borat.
Keep them on the leash, or take them into the wilderness to let them roam free. I realize that most of the readers of gothamist are recent transplants from farms across the mid-west, but that does not mean that you can hope to transform this city into the small town where you belong.
Please take your dogs, fellow hipsters, and ever increasing rents due to absurd demand back home.
Thank you, and come visit often.
>>Too often there have been reports about unleashed dogs attacking parkgoers and smaller dogs, and not just in Juniper Park.
Official stats would disagree that it makes the difference:
"Department data for 2004 show that 93 (2.3%) of 4,082 dog bites reported Citywideoccurred in DOPR facilities, and that about the same proportion, 86 (2.2%) of the 3,956 dog bites reported citywide, occurred in DOPR facilities in 2005. These bite reports do not indicate whether the biting dog was restrained or off leash."
Dog attacks are among our most underreported problems. There are no stats whatsoever on dog-on-dog attacks because they are considered "private property" by both the police who refuse to file incident reports, and the courts who consistently rule that you can only sue for the monetary value of your dog and its vet bills. So the comment that dogs are private property was not out of line, just an interpretation of the law.
“There I stood, on a cool crisp winter day in Central Park, gazing down at the frozen body of a dead raccoon. This was the second dead raccoon that day, the fifth that week. Something was very, very wrong. Who, or what, was killing the raccoons? …And why do we find squirrels and ducks mauled to death? Because someone's uncontrolled (read: unleashed) dog attacked them. The moral of this story is: dispose of your garbage properly, and leash your dogs! ...
Have you solved by now the mystery of the dead raccoons? We sent the bodies to Ward Stone, pathologist for the Department of Environmental Conservation, for necropsy. He discovered tooth marks on the wounds: sure enough, an uncontrolled dog was the culprit.”
Define the argument: off leash hours are in specific times and places. Don't tell me about those that don't obey the rules, I'll tell you to rescind driver's licenses entirely since somebody's driving drunk. This is also NOT about canine "rights" but rights of fellow tax payers who happen to own dogs. The next time you have proof of incidents involving off leash dogs utilizing off leash hours and areas, I'll listen. BTW most bites happen in the home to family members. Just like domestic violence.
To the dog owners who still gripe about leash laws, Parks & Recreation enforces the health code laws for several reasons. First, unleashed dogs pose potential danger to people and to other dogs. Many park users, horses, park wildlife and leashed dogs have been attacked and bitten by unleashed dogs. Second, many park visitors are frightened by dogs and may find unleashed dogs to be intimidating or annoying. Third, unleashed dogs are more likely to leave behind waste that is not picked up by their owners; canine waste is a known source of several pernicious zoonotic diseases. Finally, unleashed dogs destroy lawns and flower beds: areas used as informal “dog runs” have been severely damaged by the combination of wear and uric acid, a known killer of plant life.
If any other health concern left 93 or 86 New Yorkers injured or ill, there would be a crackdown on it, with emphases on prevention and enforcement - not a relaxing of the regulations already in place.
All taxpayers pay for the parks; all taxpayers should be able to use them. And that means I should be able to go into a park without worrying that a dog will bother or possibly attack me.
Too many times, owners let their dogs approach people uninvited. "but he's being friendly! he won't bite!" No, he's being poorly trained, and you as an owner are being rude.
I'd like to see a public survey taken and published in a major metropolitan newspaper. Let's see how the majority of New Yorkers really feel. I don't mean a stilted questionaire designed to skew the results, such as the one that was in "Time Out NY". Have it designed by a professional, independent organization that specializes in statistical surveys. There are plenty of them in NYC. All of the phoney-baloney polling, speculation and chimera in the online forums, blogs and online magazines regarding how the "majority" of New Yorkers think about the issue is worthless.
This is impressive. Though many disagree, there is very little of the irrational and rudeness that has prevailed on this subject for so long. Nevertheless, the "unleashers" are wrong! And, the basis for my beliefs that dogs must be leashed always, everywhere in public, all the time is that, since they are incapable of thought or reasoning, they simply cannot be trusted when not under the responsible control of a six foot leash firmly held by the owner. A police chief arrived at the scene of a crime, jumped from his car to chase the perp. Just seconds later, the super well-trained K9 dog left his car, chased and brought down the running chief, ripping the flesh off his leg. So, sorry! Couldn't distinguish good guy from bad. Bad guy is still loose (unleashed, so to speak). Dogs are property. All other thoughts on the matter are sentimental poop. Think straight on this. If you can buy or sell it, it is property!
the change in the health code does not affect what occurs "on the ground" bc off-lseah hours have existed in city parks for over 20 years.
the group out in queens is a group of bitter retirees who have nothing better to do. bob holden is a salty old man who seems to get a lot of press coverage for some reason. loser.
also, those links to the parks dept's website are old.
Koch your a cruel person ! Land your a bit of a nerd ! The bottom line here is, Dogs are animals and should be treated as is ! It boggles the mind that the city would have a provision stating that dog owners can have there dogs off leash at certain times within city parks . What ever happened to the operating hours of all city parks ? Aren't they susposed to be closed at a certain time of night ? I know they are because I got a ticket a couple of months ago for loitering in a park . I understand that dogs need the exercise and all, Think about who's more important here . Is it your dog or you ? I'm not saying dogs shouldn't be allowed in city parks it's the whole you running minding your own business and some dog running after you thinking that you are some new chew toy for them to play with . What needs to happen is the city needs to have a section of the parks for dogs only . It should be fenced in and the dog owners should be required to clean-up after there dogs ! That's just crazy talk sorry about people, Something like that won't happen anyway .
Some of the off-leash advocate's comments here create a very telling picture of the collective character of that trifling, fringe group. I would assume that all the comments here are coming from adults but you wouldn't know it by some folk's tone and choice of words. Boos and hisses? You'd think that they'd be able to keep it civil and professional at an important city agency hearing. It makes me wonder how they behave outdoors? I'm talking people here, you know, the ones that are supposed to be responsibly controlling their pets. Also, while Mr. Doocey probably could have chosen more sensitive wording, he is legally correct. Pets ARE property.
LOL, I like that "Sarah Silverman , She has a very good point . Remember people this is the "CITY" not the Country . The rules here are totally different from those of your hometown . There are no Rolling hills, Bubbly Streams, Babbling Brooks, Sunken Forests, or any of that other stuff here ! We have paved streets, Bridges, Traffic, Subways, Railroads, smug producing busses (Just a mear 40% of them ) etc. and Parks for the PEOPLE that live here ! Leash your animals !
Love animals.
Got a Yorkie (used to have two), a (please, PETA-types, domestic raised, well adjusted, totally loved obnoxoius parrot (Nanday Conure, totally undesirable, noisy, bad attitude, took him over from my Dad who couldn't take care of him, my family NEVER abandons an animal companion)), fish & frogs, and my daughter's beloved Guinea Pig, Nibbles.
I spend a lot of time in CP in the early AM hours (pre- & peri dawn), fishing, birding & just enjoying the "country in the city". (ATTN anti-fishing types, I was instrumental in banning lead weights in CP, crimped barbs only, pick up discarded lines & garbage, practice only catch & release, even in the East River).
I generally frequent the east bank of The Lake around the Ramble.
Problems with "unleashed"s that particular area:
Harass the waterfowl & other wildlife.
# ONE : OWNERS
Have totallly eroded the "play area" Just south of the stream inlet, denuding vegetation and increasing erosion.
Increased eutrophaction of the lake due to +++ nitrate, urea, organic runoff into what, don't forget, is an artificial water body with minimal cleansing reserve. This results in algal growth, low oxygen levels, turbidity, etc.
Have been hassled by excited pups (hey, they're loose, full of pep, in the wild, don't blame 'em)
Have the capsacin can ready if needed (only if bite risk) & B9mm if totally necessary.
I fish north & south of the area the "Unleashers" have comandeered, but hey, you know pups.
I take my 9-year old twins up there in the early morning for wildlife walks and birding. Have had some idiots' (I use the plural intentionally, as it's not uncommon) pup come racing up to me & my kids in a threatening way (not play display). I back down the dog (verbally, posture, display, can-in-hand) only to have the "owner" get pissed & rant "What are you doing to my dog?!!!
In addition, the incessant ranting of the idiotic UESders yelling after their pups totally screws the idyllic ambience of that area in the early AM.
Yes, parks are for everyone.
For the UESers, Let your dogs jump & swim at the Bethesda Terrace. The Ramble was purposefully designed & constructed for a sense of bucolic isolation in an urban setting. You screw it up for everyone else. At Bethesda, no erosion. Keep them out of the Ramble. It's a refuge for everyone, not just your pup (like I said, I don't blame THEM), and don't ruin the beautiful quiet & nature by your incessant yelling of "Sacha, Sacha, where'd you go?!!!!"
And FYI, many breeds are not at their happiest in a NYC environment, even if they get an occasional leash-free romp in the park & the Lake. No, don't abandon them, care for them through the rest of their lives.
But be responsible & considerate of others and realize that the world does not just consist of your in-your-own-head attitude and your perceived freedom of your ill-chosen pet (poor working-group breed assigned to an unfulfilling existence in NYC).
Hell, damned transplants, & unfortunate pups, I was trekking/fishing/birding CP before dawn before you even got mitzvahed in Dayton and came to screw up one of the great gems of NYC. (hey, you have to admit I was pretty mellow in my post so far and can't jus't finish up without a little tweak)
Checked with the Jen spell-check/Gtammatik tool
Bofug
Friggin Jen tool.
Yeah, I know, but I was in a rush to get home.
One misplaced line, one unmatched parentheses, one bad apostrophe (jus't) & Grammatik mis-spelled)
Must be the same one used @ Gothamist.
Either that or contracted some meningeal Salmonella at the Parks Dept. bathroom.
Sorry, that was meant to read Shake Shack
Animals are no more property than adopted kids. Ooh, did I offend someone?
People who dislike animals are less human themselves.
That said, it probably is in the best interest of these dogs, the owners, and the park-going public-at-large if there were more and larger dog runs. That seems like the best compromise.
Why would a dog owner object to that? I'd like to hear a counterargument. The dog is off-leash but not free to intimidate those who, for whatever their reasons, might not like dogs approaching them. As much as I love dogs, even I don't like large, strange, slobbery or wet dogs jumping up on me.
If the dog owners are concerned about their pets' welfare, why don't they advocate for the creation of more dog runs or--gasp--pony up the money to build these spaces themselves? Why do they feel that they have the right to take over the entire park, and use it for their specific purposes? What makes them and their pets more important than the general public?
The humans--all humans--pay the taxes, and their rights should supercede those of the dogs.
NO way will I allow more dog runs in City Parks.
YOU want them, YOU buy your own land. There's still some left to buy upstate. NOT in the concrete jungle. These are Dogs for christsakes. Not humans.
unless you humans have fur and like to eat shit because I've seen dogs eat their own shit.
how about a compromise? unleash the dogs, but with quintuple compensatory damages + punitive damages? For the judgment-proof ghetto types, have them snuff their Snoopies as punishment. Kid loses arm to rottweiler, has law school paid for. Dog-huggers get to put their money where their mouths are. Everybody wins.
Bob Holden (Bob from Middle Village), Dear Leader of the JPCA, you are a true sophist. Your specious arguments and frivolous lawsuit are backfiring badly on you. It's a pleasure to watch you twist.
Your performance yesterday at the Health Hearing was quite poor, along with your lemming cronies, and your harangue toward the Health Board did not endear your arguments to them.
Your predictable spin of events and reality is laughable. You live on Planet Juniper where you are the self-appointed dictator.
Any informed citizen can understand after taking the time to see the success of the 20-year park Offleash policy, that the JPCA is simply wrong and trying to take New Yorkers back to a time that had far more dog bites and poorer public health.
You will not succeed.
But who, exactly, is the Off-Leash law a success for? It certainly isn't a success for people who ca no longer use their parks for picnics, ball games, strolling...all because the lawns are overrun with dogs. It isn't a success for people who are frightened of dogs. It isn't a success for people who have allergies, which can be life-threatening. It isn't a success for people who have been bitten, menaced or knocked down. Or for smaller dogs or animals that have been killed by unruly pets. Or for wildlife that has been destroyed, grass that has been dug up...need I go on?
The Off-Leash advocates are seeking to make the parks usable for only one specific group of people: dog owners. That isn't fair.
I'm not sure just how many picnics and ballgames are played after 9PM, or even before 9AM. How about we leash the unruly and violent football players who take over the parks in Queens every fall. I don't know many dogs who can ruin a field as quickly, and I won't even go in to their colorful language, or frequent fights.
Anybody even comes near my dogs with an intent to do harm will have me to go through first. I'll protect my "property" in whatever way I see fit.
"Voice of Reason". Wow! So, what was your "reasonable" argument? That you are just livid with rage? That you want to do name calling? Readers want to know: What kind of dog do you own (as property, that is)? How does he behave with people? Like you? No dog should be required to live in a place so filled with rage. Even a dog whisperer or a Garo Alexanian would inform you that it is you who must change if the dog is to be properly behaved as property. Try to leash your rage.
Plenty of ball games and picnics are held after 9pm. What about Bryant Park's film festival, Summer Stage and other evening events in Central Park, the baseball/softball leagues, etc. If I'm enjoying a night event I shouldn't have to worry about someone's unleashed hound. What about bikes? Plenty of people use bike paths after dark. A bike rider isn't likely to see your unleashed dog in the dark, now is he?
Human property damage is another issue, and should not be dragged into this mix. When your dog starts paying taxes, he will have as much right to access and destroy the park as the humans. Until then, his needs should come second to those of the humans who want to use the park.
And once again, if you want a place for your dog to run, why not pay for a dog park yourself? Use these dog owner coalitions you have to fund and construct dog runs and leave the rest of us alone.
Anyone been to the designated off-leash area at Murray Playground on 21st Street in LIC? The ground is bare from being trampled on, trees had to be cut down because of constant peeing on them, there are landmines everywhere and it stinks to high heaven! The dog owners won't even go inside the off-leash area with their pets - they wait outside! I certainly wouldn't want to see this happen at Prospect and Central Parks or any other park for that matter.
>>Plenty of ball games and picnics are held after 9pm... What about bikes? Plenty of people use bike paths after dark. A bike rider isn't likely to see your unleashed dog in the dark, now is he?
Again: Off-leash hours are in designated areas at designated times. After 9pm it's pitch dark; and while I'm sure the Night Vision Goggle Baseball League needs their space, truth is that they could have it.
Even in the one place in Prospect Park where there are daylight off-leash hours during the summer - on the Nethermead, weekdays, after 5pm - the space is big enough that there's usually also a soccer game and one or two cricket games going on. Miracle of miracles, everyone gets along.
Ever walk the Long Meadow after dark in the middle of winter? If it weren't for the dog walkers, it would be desolate. When there are more people around, the parks are safer.
And "bike paths" are on the Park Drives around the park, far from the off-leash areas. Bikes are supposed to keep off the walking paths because they're dangers to pedestrians - especially after dark.
Thanks J for the first reasonable argument in awhile.
To clarify, I do NOT own a dog, but I do like dogs and I respect others' right to own a dog (as property OR family member). And I find the anti-off-leash arguments to be more opinions than fact. I understand that some people don't like dogs. I agree that you should not have to be around an off-leash dog if you don't want to. But I go to Prospect Park often in the summer and I've never seen any conflict between barbecuers/concert-goers/baseball players and the off-leash dogs in the Nethermead. I can't speak to dogs illegally off-leash at other times or in other areas, but I simply can't imagine any conflict between these dogs and other park-goers.
The park is HUGE. There is no reason to be anywhere near the off-leash dogs unless you want to be. That's obviously why they chose the area they chose. There's plenty of space to play soccer or football or ride your bike or go for a run without ever so much as seeing the field where the dogs are allowed off-leash. It's not a question of one group losing access to a park because another group gains it- there is more than enough room for everyone to coexist peacefully.
I agree that dogs should only be allowed off-leash in certain areas and at certain times, but I don't see why, when those rules are followed, there would ever be a problem.
As for dog poop, that bothers me a lot more on the sidewalk than it does in the park. I don't think off-leash dog owners leave more of a mess than leashed dogs. And honestly, I find the smell of piss that saturates this city in the summertime much more offensive.
There are too many important sanitation and safety issues that the city's time and resources ought to be devoted to instead of wasting time on this one. What about the rash of muggings in the park and at the 7th Ave subway? Shouldn't park-goers be a little more concerned about that?
As long as people follow the rules, it is not hard to avoid the dogs, and we all have enough room to do whatever we want in the park.
Isn't anyone concerned with the fact that having dogs off-leash at night means their owners can't clean up the poop their babies have deposited because they can't see it? Also, you can't see an off-leash dog charging at you at night. I still don't understand the "designated areas at designated times" business. If it doesn't have a fence around it, what prevents the animal from leaving the designated area and why do these people believe that dogs are only dangerous during daylight and therefore only need to be leashed for 12 hours a day? The whole off-leash argument is extremely flawed.
Here's an interesting thought...who is responsible for enforcing these "off-leash rules?" Parks Enforcement Patrol officers are only on duty from 9am-5pm and the off-leash hours are 9pm-9am. The NYPD certainly isn't going to respond to 311 complaints about off-leash dogs. Sounds like it will be a free-for-all in our local parks.
>> If it doesn't have a fence around it, what prevents the animal from leaving the designated area and why do these people believe that dogs are only dangerous during daylight and therefore only need to be leashed for 12 hours a day?
It's not a matter of dogs being dangerous/not dangerous; it's a matter of making the situation safer, both minimizing contact and ultilizing underused areas during off-hours. No one thinks cramming bunches of dogs and tons of people into the same space at the same time is a good idea. No one's calling for off-leash hours on the F train at rush hour.
And off-leash privileges do not absolve dog owners from being mindful of their pets. They should know where their dogs are at all times -- dogs that are trained well enough to be off-leash will stick close to their owners, anyway -- and of course be aware of droppings, etc.
>
I don't think that you understand, the 9 to 9 has been a policy for the last 20 years!!! SO where has this free for all been occuring?
>
I don't think that you understand, the 9 to 9 has been a policy for the last 20 years!!! SO where has this free for all been occuring?
>
I don't think that you understand, the 9 to 9 has been a policy for the last 20 years!!! SO where has this free for all been occuring?
If you have to make the situation safer, it implies that there is a danger. Many people use the parks from sunrise to 9am - joggers, bicyclists, birders, etc. I just don't see how this period is considered a "safer" time to unleash dogs than during the day when most people are at work or school. In fact, if they are unleashed during daylight hours when PEP officers are patrolling the park, then it stands to reason that the scofflaws would be less likely to abuse the privilege.
And once again, if you want a place for your dog to run, why not pay for a dog park yourself? Use these dog owner coalitions you have to fund and construct dog runs and leave the rest of us alone. >>
Bryant Park, Summer Stage?? Dogs have never, nor will they ever be allowed to run free in Bryant Park, and as far as Summer Stage goes, it's a concert venue, may as well have said MSG.
Dog owners at Juniper Valley Park were planning on building a dog park there, using their own money, but the same people involved in this lawsuit also had a hand in having that plan vetoed. So they don't want dogs running around off leash, but they also don't want to a dog run, not even one that the city wouldn't have to spend a dime for.
It's amazing this uproar over allowing dogs to be offleash in certain areas between 9PM and 9AM. 99.6% of the people with dogs are responsible and clean up after their dogs and respect the offleash rules. I don't see people wanting to ban liquor because of drunk drivers. Maybe we should ban cars all together, how many people get injured and die due to carelss and irresponsible drivers?
AND bikers are not allowed to be riding on the paths in Central Park, but has any park employee or ranger ever given a ticket to one who goes whizzing by a group of people? But of course who could possibly get hurt by a bike flying by at 20 miles an hour?!?!
J: "... They should know where their dogs are at all times -- dogs that are trained well enough to be off-leash will stick close to their owners, anyway -- and of course be aware of droppings, etc."
Should know. Dogs that are trained well enough will stick ...
What if the owners don't know? What if the dogs are not well enough trained? And, in the dark, what if the owner cannot find the droppings? Or, because it's dark, won't even look?
Who determines which dogs are trained well enough to be off-leash? You trust the owners to determine this? Good luck.
>>Dog owners at Juniper Valley Park were planning on building a dog park there, using their own money, but the same people involved in this lawsuit also had a hand in having that plan vetoed. So they don't want dogs running around off leash, but they also don't want to a dog run, not even one that the city wouldn't have to spend a dime for.
DCell, That is a really big lie. First of all, there are about 2 dozen people who run their dogs off leash at Juniper, and at last count, about 70 legitimate members of the Juniper Valley Park Dog Association, which counts each individual household member as an association member, does not charge a membership fee and was hastily formed in March of this year when the controversy started. They definitely didn't have the tens of thousands of dollars that it takes to build a dog run. The parks commissioner was getting a lot of complaints from people in the neighborhood who were being harassed by off-leash dogs while trying to enjoy the park. So he decided that a dog run was a good idea and was going to build one completely with taxpayer money at Juniper Park. Juniper Park Civic Association did not block this at all. Juniper Park Conservancy, who takes care of the park, took Mr. Benepe on a tour and pointed out where they thought would be a suitable location for the dog run. Then he asked the dog owners where they would like the dog run. They were not in the same area. Instead of using either suggestion, Benepe decided he would put it next to a historic colonial cemetery, in a part of the park that was used passively. And THAT was what was unacceptable to the Juniper Park Conservancy and the Juniper Park Civic Association. Please stop listening to NYCDOG or FIDO who want to paint a different picture. They weren't there and are making things up to further their agenda.
>>If you have to make the situation safer, it implies that there is a danger.
C'mon, there's danger crossing the street. If you want to be perfectly safe, never leave your house. You know what I was saying.
>>Many people use the parks from sunrise to 9am - joggers, bicyclists, birders, etc. I just don't see how this period is considered a "safer" time to unleash dogs than during the day when most people are at work or school.
Besides the fact that, of course, dog owners are also mostly at work during those hours, Prospect Park is often utilized by school groups throughout the day during the school year, by day campers in the summer. On weekends, those hours are the times the park is fullest.
As far as biking, etc.: The bike tracks in Prospect Park are, as I've said before, not near the off-leash areas; the majority of joggers follow the same circle. I'm not sure where all the birders are -- it's in their best interest to be stealthy, right? -- but imagine they're in the Ravine and down by the Audobon House. I've never seen huge packs of birders.
>>What if the owners don't know? What if the dogs are not well enough trained? And, in the dark, what if the owner cannot find the droppings? Or, because it's dark, won't even look?
People who spend time with pets know those pets; anyone who doesn't want their dog running away from them will take the time to train them. There are still plenty of people who keep their dogs on-leash during off-leash hours because they know better.
As far as poo scenarios go, the same idiots who don't pick up after their pets off-leash don't on-leash, either. Those people should have their pets (and maybe an appendage or two) taken away. But your hypotheticals are not the norm. I can't speak for all dog owners, but my dog generally doesn't wait until we've reached the off-leash area to go; it's the first order of business when we go out. And after dark, I always carry a pocket-sized flashlight.
What if people drive without a license? What if they jaywalk? What if they litter? Personally, I'm not paralyzed with fear and am able to live my life.
>>If you have to make the situation safer, it implies that there is a danger.
C'mon, there's danger crossing the street. If you want to be perfectly safe, never leave your house. You know what I was saying.
>>Many people use the parks from sunrise to 9am - joggers, bicyclists, birders, etc. I just don't see how this period is considered a "safer" time to unleash dogs than during the day when most people are at work or school.
Besides the fact that, of course, dog owners are also mostly at work during those hours, Prospect Park is often utilized by school groups throughout the day during the school year, by day campers in the summer. On weekends, those hours are the times the park is fullest.
As far as biking, etc.: The bike tracks in Prospect Park are, as I've said before, not near the off-leash areas; the majority of joggers follow the same circle. I'm not sure where all the birders are -- it's in their best interest to be stealthy, right? -- but imagine they're in the Ravine and down by the Audobon House. I've never seen huge packs of birders.
>>What if the owners don't know? What if the dogs are not well enough trained? And, in the dark, what if the owner cannot find the droppings? Or, because it's dark, won't even look?
People who spend time with pets know those pets; anyone who doesn't want their dog running away from them will take the time to train them. There are still plenty of people who keep their dogs on-leash during off-leash hours because they know better.
As far as poo scenarios go, the same idiots who don't pick up after their pets off-leash don't on-leash, either. Those people should have their pets (and maybe an appendage or two) taken away. But your hypotheticals are not the norm. I can't speak for all dog owners, but my dog generally doesn't wait until we've reached the off-leash area to go; it's the first order of business when we go out. And after dark, I always carry a pocket-sized flashlight.
What if people drive without a license? What if they jaywalk? What if they litter? Personally, I'm not paralyzed with fear and am able to live my life.
(Sorry for the duplicate message. Hit a server error.)
Bobby H: Trying to project your rage onto me? I'm not the one who yells at his neighbors at "Town Meetings", nor hands members of his own association their dues back and throws them out of meetings, nor takes the microphone out of the hand of your own lawyer who has the audacity to speak his own mind at a meeting, nor turn off the microphone on another speaker. That's real rage and lack of control. You're text book.
I was simply expressing Schadenfreude at seeing your misguided lawsuit backfire so badly.
That the Juniper Park Dog Association was ever offered an area in the park is a bold faced lie. The Juniper Park Civic Association has actively campaigned against a dog park in Juniper Park. Posting signs in local stores and from the rumors I hear berating people who did not want it posted. In actuality we were formed in April and we already have over 200 members.
For a new group we have volunteered and done 4 clean up the park days, Low cost Micro chipping donated a doggie poop bag dispenser. And walked in the most recent Breast Cancer walk becoming the #1 fund raising group in Queens, not too shabby for a newly formed group.
In the argument of poop our group has a policy if we see someone not clean up we offer a bag if they ignore us we clean it ourselves, of course the only people I have ever had ignore or get nasty were people with dogs on leash.
I do not put dogs over people never have never will. I do not play softball, basketball I choose to play and interact with my dog in the park, which is the only difference between other park users and me.
Voice of Reason: "I was simply expressing Schadenfreude at seeing your misguided lawsuit backfire so badly."
Your Schadenfreude may just be a wee bit premature; before declaring that any lawsuit has backfired, isn't it far better to wait for the verdict?
Describing events that never occurred is a form of delusion that must originate from your uncontrollable rage. The question for this forum is simple: should dogs be leashed or unleashed in public parks? And, why? Your rage never addresses this question. Leash your comments to that question and you may actually have something reasonable to say.
Voice of Reason: "I was simply expressing Schadenfreude at seeing your misguided lawsuit backfire so badly."
Your Schadenfreude may just be a wee bit premature; before declaring that any lawsuit has backfired, isn't it far better to wait for the verdict?
Describing events that never occurred is a form of delusion that must originate from your uncontrollable rage. The question for this forum is simple: should dogs be leashed or unleashed in public parks? And, why? Your rage never addresses this question. Leash your comments to that question and you may actually have something reasonable to say.
Bob:
Don't know if you've seen the most recent editorial in the local paper exposing your erratic, uncompromising, and hostile behavor towards many in the Middle Village community.
Same article also describes how your divisive, uncivil, and meanspirited behavior is responsible for the drastic decline in membership of the JPCA and the creation of a new civic that had over triple the attendence at their last meeting than you had at JPCA's last meeting.
But folks, that link is just for Bob's edification. Please, no one else click on the link. Well, ok, only if you want to get some background into the "character" issue of the character who's attempting to set the discussion agenda on this discussion board. The civic "leader" who refused to compromise with many in his community and the Parks Dept who offered a dog park in Juniper Valley Park and who instead misguidedly sued the City to take down the successful 20-year Offleash Hours policy.
Pardon me, but I am just joining this discusson. Let me state that no one affiliated with NYCdog is assuming victory at the Board of Health. As Vince Lombardi said, "You don't spike the ball on the 20 yard line."
Beyond that, there are valid issues on all sides. Those who oppose off-leash have raised points that NYCdog has as well. We want better education, signage, enforcement, and voluntary compliance (aka RESPECT for the law and our neighbors).
Those of us who support off-leash can rightly cite nearly 20 years of success with the policy, the decrease in reported bites, and the general improvement of city life for all.
With a safer and more livable city -not to mention a rising population- our parks are being used more. That is why NYCdog groups want the signage and other inexpensive improvements to help clearly delineate where and when dogs can and cannot be off-leash.
Those who oppose off-leash will have to respect those times just as we must respect the bulk of each day when our beloved dogs must be leashed. This is respectful sharing of our parklands.
We can do it. We do it now for ball players, children using the parks as school playgrounds, and much more. While some may see this as an inconvenience, I personally prefer to see this as people in a vibrant city of diverse interests living side by side amicably.
Voice of Reason: Have you simply no capacity at self-control to limit (leash) your rage, and keep the discussion to the question: Is it a good or bad policy to unleash the dogs in the NYC Parks? And, why?
There is no need for a link to a completely off-topic newspaper article.
If a person sues to enforce the rights of people to use parks without being approached by any dog in any manner, how is that lawsuit misguided? It would be misguided for an unleash proponent to institute such a lawsuit. But not misguided for the opponent to sue.
People use the courts every day to enforce their rights. Since just about every case has a person of an opposite view, are all these cases misguided? Who are the courts for?
Terri Sullivan just mentioned in a previous post that her group was "never" offered a dog run in JVP. Which is interesting, because previously she has said that the Parks Department offered them one, but JPCA blocked it. Funny how the story always changes. I especially enjoyed her lie about JPCA posting flyers against a dog run. The only flyers we put up are ones announcing meetings, rallies and park events that we sponsor.
Voice of "Reason": How do you assume that JPCA membership is in a rapid decline based on that editorial in the paper? We have had about 50 new memberships since June, with no current members cancelling their membership, except for the "PTA mother" who accepted her dues back since she was so unhappy with us for not getting her husband a raise or a new school for her kids in another neighborhood. The reason we didn't have as many people at our last meeting is because we wisely limited attendance to members only, and did not allow people (such as cronies of corrupt councilmen and unhinged dog activists) with their own agendas to infiltrate and disrupt the proceedings.
And it was quite easy for our councilman to get 400+ attendees at his new "civic association" meeting as he called his union donors and the sports leagues that he sponsors and told them that they better turn out. That's the oldest trick in the book!
>>As far as biking, etc.: The bike tracks in Prospect Park are, as I've said before, not near the off-leash areas; the majority of joggers follow the same circle. I'm not sure where all the birders are -- it's in their best interest to be stealthy, right? -- but imagine they're in the Ravine and down by the Audobon House. I've never seen huge packs of birders.
J: Check this out, and you will see that off-leash dogs in Prospect Park are infringing on birders and other park users and it doesn't seem to be just a handful of scofflaws as FIDO & Co. would like you to believe. Notice that these were taken in different areas of the park all on the same morning during off-leash huors.
http://brooklynparks.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_brooklynparks_archive.html
I'm still waiting to see the study that corroborates the theory that, in NYC, unleashed dogs in public = less dog bites. Couldn't it be attributed to any number of factors? How about enforcement of the dangerous dog laws or people owning fewer aggressive species? As far as a 20 year success, prove to me that this policy even existed in 1986. Show me some documentation. Just because you repeat it ad nauseum, doesn't make it true. The policy in Prospect Park began in 1997. I know because I have letters from the administrator and I attended a meetings with the Prospect Park Alliance when it was discussed.
Bob:
I know it's annoying for you that you can't dictate the discussion topic on this talkback board. But try to contain your fury. It's not like this is one of your "Town Meetings" where you can turn off people's mics, berate them, tell them to 'shut up', throw them out, or ban them altogether as you've done with the JPCA meetings.
I also know it's your style to pose sophistic rhetorical questions to deflect attention from what other people might wish to discuss.
I wish to talk about what type of civic "leader" ignores a sizable number of people in his community who wanted either Offleash Hours or a dog park in Juniper Valley Park, then trash talks the Parks Commissioner (whom just three year earlier you honored with an award for building your fenced in and locked ball field), and also who goes to war against his local elected City Councilman (when only one year earlier you elected him your JPCA Man of the Year). All this says a lot about your mercurial behavior and also may help to inform new readers who might not be too closely following the history of this debate why you decided to bring the lawsuit.
Bob, just in case you missed it, your City Councilman wrote a rather interesting piece about your behavior in the local paper. Please, no one else but Bob should click on that link, it might be a bit embarassing for him.
It's important to those just joining this debate that they understand the real motives behind the JPCA's lawsuit--which was an attempt to force power from the Parks Comissioner to the local community board level (where coincidentally, you're the vice chairman of the local CB). More detailed info available at the bottom of this page.
I'll leave it to others on this board to point out that though there are more dogs in NYC than ever before, the rate of dog bites is at an all time low due to better socialized and exercised dogs. Or that the Offleash Hours policy is the status quo in NYC, including Juniper Valley Park, and has been for many years.
Your quote above says that if the amendment passes the Health Board there will be many more dog attacks denies many years of experience to the contrary. Kindly explain how that would work since with the advent of Offleash Hours and dog parks, the number of dog bites in the City has been on a steady decline to the record low number we have today? If you truly cared about public health and safety instead of flexing your political muscle, why did you block both a dog run or Offleash Hours in Juniper Valley Park?
How's that for a rhetorical question, Bob? I like your style.
Also, I've been meaning to ask, was it intentional that you and your JPCA board members forgot to bring any experts, professionals, or hard statistics to the Health Board hearing to support your position against the proposed amendments? The lack of any hard evidence to support your claims that the 20-year status quo Offleash Hours policy is "lunacy" and "insane" kind of made all the rational people listening not look favorable to your arguments. Then again, everyone can make up their own mind when they get a chance to read both side's position in front of the Health Board.
I'll be sure to post the link to the PDF of the Health Board hearing when it becomes available so that everyone here who's interested can compare the testimony of the 30 people who spoke in favor of the proposed amendment at the Health Board hearing (Veterinary associations, a former Parks Commissioner, many professional certified animal behavorists, government officials, legal experts on animal law), and those nine who spoke anecdotally and theoretically against the Offleash Hours policy.
Your brief rhetorical reply to me before was proabably because you were at work and can't/shouldn't devote too much time to personal business there. After dinner tonight, as you're watching the election results, perhaps you can find time to respond non-rhetorically.
Bob:
I know it's annoying for you that you can't dictate the discussion topic on this talkback board. But try to contain your fury. It's not like this is one of your "Town Meetings" where you can turn off people's mics, berate them, tell them to 'shut up', throw them out, or ban them altogether as you've done with the JPCA meetings.
I also know it's your style to pose sophistic rhetorical questions to deflect attention from what other people might wish to discuss.
I wish to talk about what type of civic "leader" ignores a sizable number of people in his community who wanted either Offleash Hours or a dog park in Juniper Valley Park, then trash talks the Parks Commissioner (whom just three year earlier you honored with an award for building your fenced in and locked ball field), and also who goes to war against his local elected City Councilman (when only one year earlier you elected him your JPCA Man of the Year). All this says a lot about your mercurial behavior and also may help to inform new readers who might not be too closely following the history of this debate why you decided to bring the lawsuit.
Bob, just in case you missed it, your City Councilman wrote a rather interesting piece about your behavior in the local paper. Please, no one else but Bob should click on that link, it might be a bit embarassing for him.
It's important to those just joining this debate that they understand the real motives behind the JPCA's lawsuit--which was an attempt to force power from the Parks Comissioner to the local community board level (where coincidentally, you're the vice chairman of the local CB). More detailed info available at the bottom of this page.
I'll leave it to others on this board to point out that though there are more dogs in NYC than ever before, the rate of dog bites is at an all time low due to better socialized and exercised dogs. Or that the Offleash Hours policy is the status quo in NYC, including Juniper Valley Park, and has been for many years.
Your quote above says that if the amendment passes the Health Board there will be many more dog attacks denies many years of experience to the contrary. Kindly explain how that would work since with the advent of Offleash Hours and dog parks, the number of dog bites in the City has been on a steady decline to the record low number we have today? If you truly cared about public health and safety instead of flexing your political muscle, why did you block both a dog run or Offleash Hours in Juniper Valley Park?
How's that for a rhetorical question, Bob? I like your style.
Also, I've been meaning to ask, was it intentional that you and your JPCA board members forgot to bring any experts, professionals, or hard statistics to the Health Board hearing to support your position against the proposed amendments? The lack of any hard evidence to support your claims that the 20-year status quo Offleash Hours policy is "lunacy" and "insane" kind of made all the rational people listening not look favorable to your arguments. Then again, everyone can make up their own mind when they get a chance to read both side's position in front of the Health Board.
I'll be sure to post the link to the PDF of the Health Board hearing when it becomes available so that everyone here who's interested can compare the testimony of the 30 people who spoke in favor of the proposed amendment at the Health Board hearing (Veterinary associations, a former Parks Commissioner, many professional certified animal behavorists, government officials, legal experts on animal law), and those nine who spoke anecdotally and theoretically against the Offleash Hours policy.
Your brief rhetorical reply to me before was proabably because you were at work and couldn't/shouldn't devote too much time to personal business there. After dinner tonight, as you're watching the election results, perhaps you can find time to respond non-rhetorically.
Hey Park A - # 77 - visit the following website: http://www.nycoffleash.com/html/files/Commissioners_letters.pdf
20 years. Why it's a success? Because dog bites are down. Why? Dogs are less aggressive due to off-leash excercise and socialization. And, parks are safer b/c of it (and crime is down too - but that's solely a vigilence + presence = deterrence argument for another day).
If we had enough space, and enough money, sure, we'd have more dog runs. But, those would only be spaces for dogs. Having designated park space, only during limited hours, allows for everyone to enjoy our parks. Dual use. It's a reasonable accomodation...
Isn't Halloween over? Isn't it time to put away the scary rhetoric and tricks?
I mean, let's face reality: the Health Code says dogs have to be restrained, which MAY be enforced by the Parks Department. The Parks Code says that the Parks Commissioner can allow dogs to be permitted off-leash. And, the City Charter says that Parks rules and regs have the full force of law, Citywide. So, the off-leash hours are legitimate, legal, and have been in place for 20 years.
Meanwhile, the Health Dep't is rightfully acknowledging that Parks has the authority to allow dogs off leash with their proposed amendments.
Do you seriously think both Parks and Health would endanger New Yorkers? Of course not.
This is a smart policy that is good for all New Yorkers - we live in a small space, and we're crowded so we have to share. Don't like it? Move to Jersey.
This is a limited hours policy - 9 pm until parks close, and when they open again until 9 Am. Only in designated places. Most folks who use parks use them during the day - after the early morning, and not during the late evening.
Most dog owners pick up after their pooches. If they don't, they get yelled at by other dog owners. Know why? Because no one wants to step in poop.
If you want to ride your bike, if you want to play softball, if you want to go jogging, you use the park.
If you own a dog, and you want to exercise your dog and get some fresh air yourself, you bring them to a park. You play fetch with them. You let them interact with other dogs, so that they are socialized, and have friends, and aren't aggressive. Only during limited times, in designated spots. It's called sharing.
That's common sense. That's the reasonable accomodation that the Parks Commissioner, and the Mayor have allowed. That's what has worked for 20 years - limited times, designated spots.
Dog owners are people who use parks just like everyone else. They don't like stepping in poop.
Which reminds me - why doesn't the JCPA pick up the rather (sounds like spitty) tab they've left the City to step in when JCPA sued the City?
I'm impartial on this. There seem to be a lot of benefits for the dogs with off-leash. And, and as a result, there seem to be a lot of benefits for other NY'ers in having dogs off-leash - less aggressive dogs, less biting. Those are good things.
Why don't we just all get together and improve the reporting - times, dates, dog on dog, dog on person, etc. And, work out a way to ostracize the bad dog-owner, or retrain him and his dog.
I see every morning in Central Park lots of dogs doing their thing, chasing balls, chasing each other, and I've never been bothered when I jog by... What's the problem? Just do what the cops did - improve the recording, the metrics, and go after the problem owners... they are the problem, if there even is one...
You know, I've been bitten by a dog in NYC. It was on the sidewalk, and it was on-leash. And, it was going after another dog, on-leash, on the sidewalk. In the park, I've never seen a bite, never been bitten myself. And, I've seen that same dog, off-leash, in the park. It just chases a ball in the morning.
Maybe some of the folks who post on this site should be leashed up instead?
Or, maybe Improved Reporting has a good suggestion - get the facts straight. Let's find out how many bites were on or off leash, where, when, and who the owners are... maybe those areas need more dog runs, whereas other areas work just fine?
I think that the Voice of Reason should Take it Easy on the JCPA or that guy Holden. I mean, it's clear JCPA/Holden doesn't have a firm grasp over: the facts, the law, their own group, or reality itself ...
So, it's almost too easy to pick on them.
And Holden is fully within his rights to sue the City, and make taxpayers foot the bill for that expensive lawsuit, and any possibly appeals. What does he care? He's just in it for him.
Plus, he is entitled to reject a rational compromise of a dog run at Juniper Park, which would put unleashed dogs only in one spot.
Wouldn't you ? You'd get your name in the paper more! That's what it's all about!
And, just as he is entitled to a day in court, he is entitled to the expensive process to democratically be told that he is just flat out wrong. After all, we're headed in that direction right now...
So, don't beat up on him. Maybe he just doesn't know any better.
Perhaps he should just be patted on the head, and told that he's a "good boy". 'Cuz that's what I'd do to him, right after I leashed him up... "good boy, bobby".
Maybe Voice of Reason should take it easy on Holden and JCPA. I mean, it's clear they don't have a grasp of the facts, the law, their own group, or maybe even reality itself.
It's just too easy, you know. I mean, Holden can't be held accountable for suing the City, or making the taxpayers foot the bill. He doesn't care about that, he's protecting his right to have his name in the paper. That's the most important thing. Oh, and beloved Maspeth. Because, as goes Maspeth, so goes the Nation.
Holden can't be held accountable for rejecting a compromise that would put a dog run in Juniper Park. That would be a rational solution. But, that would assume he is rational.
Plus, it would limit his news coverage. We wouldn't want that, now would we?
Instead, wasting taxpayer money on a lawsuit is the way to go. Sue the City! Sue the City!
Perhaps, when he loses, he will appeal, costing taxpayers more. Or, after the democratic process runs its course with the Health Dep't, he will cause another costly stink.
I'd just leash him up, and pat him on the head and say, "good boy, bobby. good boy." Maybe he'd understand that?
Maybe Voice of Reason should take it easy on Holden and JCPA. I mean, it's clear they don't have a grasp of the facts, the law, their own group, or maybe even reality itself.
It's just too easy, you know. I mean, Holden can't be held accountable for suing the City, or making the taxpayers foot the bill. He doesn't care about that, he's protecting his right to have his name in the paper. That's the most important thing. Oh, and beloved Maspeth. Because, as goes Maspeth, so goes the Nation.
Holden also can't be held accountable for rejecting a compromise that would put a dog run in Juniper Park. That would be a rational solution. But, that would assume he is rational.
Plus, it would limit his news coverage. We wouldn't want that, now would we?
Instead, wasting taxpayer money on a lawsuit is the way to go. Sue the City! Sue the City!
Perhaps, when he loses, he will appeal, costing taxpayers more. Or, after the democratic process runs its course with the Health Dep't, he will find another way for the City to waste taxpayer money.
Personally, I'd just keep a short leash on him. And, ever now and again, I’d pat him on the head and say, "good boy, bobby. good boy." Maybe he'd understand that?
Mr Metropolitan - again all you say is it is a success but give no cause and effect data linking unleashed dogs in NYC with less bites.
Pointing me to a letter from a politician parroting the same sentence tells us nothing. As for less crime; read the Patrick Langan US Department of Justice report on crime reduction in NYC or the George L. Kelling and William H. Sousa study. Crime started going down in 1990 and unleashed dogs, I'm sorry to say, had nothing to do with it. As for exercise, I agree that it's good for all of us. Socialization, by most animal behaviorist's definition, means to people and objects, not other dogs. Give this a read:
http://www.mmilani.com/commentary-200310.html
The number of bites seem to keep changing, however, according to the Dept. of Health's Citywide Accountability Program reports, last year there were 5,385 REPORTED bites. Check for yourself. In addition, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine Animal Health Newsletter states that "Dog bites have long been recognized as one of the most under reported of all injuries". It should be noted that the city does not maintain statistics on the number of dogs injured by other dogs, dogs lost, dogs killed by automobiles, injuries other than bites or injuries incurred as a direct result of an uncontrolled dog.
I can only surmise that it's the irresponsible, fringe off-leashers who believe that more unleashed dogs in city parks will make for safer parks and less dog bites. (it sounds ridiculous even just reading those words)
Next time you see your shrink tell the doctor that you think unleashing all the city's dogs in the parks will make them safer. Bet he increases your meds.
Stella,
Let's be clear there was a period before the JVPDA was created when parks approached the civic with a dog park proposal which was rejected by the civic. I as a dog owner before helping to create the Dog Association contacted the Civic Association but never received a reply. I then contacted NYCdog asking for their advice and guidance, they then also contacted the civic association via a letter to start a dialogue they were also ignored. I have never turned down a dog park location within Juniper Park. Nor can I recall that I have ever stated that the JVPDA were offered one.
I absolutely cannot believe that you are stating that the civic association did not campaign via posters against a dog park. Every shop owner on Dry Harbor Rd. and Eliot Ave. was approached and most complied.
Your group can put whatever spin it wants (it usually does) I know the truth and so do many other people in Middle Village.
Instead of trying to compromise with people the JPCA tries intimidation and ridicule. Short term thinking at its worst.
By posting this I am opening myself up to personal attacks here and in the Juniper Berry which however beautifully made is nothing but a magazine filled with divisive hateful content built on what I can only assume are distortions, if the conduct of the JPCA in the Dog situation is any indicator. I have never hidden behind a screen name. Nor have I ever personalized the issues as has been done to me on other boards.
Many people are arguing why should their tax dollars go to dogs? The answer is this is not a dog issue it is a people issue. I do not begrudge ball players of any kind their space or that my tax dollars go to the building of those ball fields. Nor do I begrudge the cyclists or any other park user. Why am I begrudged a space in which to use the park? The only difference between how our group uses the park and the ball players is that while we are interact with a living creature they are interacting with an inanimate object. This is a legitimate use of park space and the off leash hours are truly a fair compromise between dog owners and non dog owners.
With proper signage and designated areas we can make the parks even safer and more fun for all to use.
Mr. A - let's talk about cause and effect. I write something rational, fact based, and empirical, and you respond with theatrics and over the top rhetoric.
When the Mets win, does Willie Randolph get all the credit? When the Democrats win, does Nancy Pelosi get all the credit? No. But, they contributed.
With dogs having set hours, and designated spots to exercise and socialize off-leash, they are less aggressive, and more able to deal with City living. With few dog runs, off-leash in Parks is the only way to get the dogs to exercise in the City. The data shows that the numbers of bites have dropped dramatically since the off-leash policy has been in effect.
Is it just b/c of off-leash? Perhaps Willie Randolph had something to do with it? I don't know. What I do know, is that the numbers show that bites are down another 10.3% this year. And, dog ownership has gone up. Is there a cause and effect? Yes. Less aggression is caused by more exercise and dog-to-dog socialization. Should bites they go lower? OF COURSE.
But, if you always leash dogs, and don't allow exercise and socialization since they are leashed up, you will likely see more bites. MANY, MANY, MANY empirically based, scientific, impartial studies show this.
And, many studies show that dogs need to be socialized with each other. Just like people. You can't just lock em up in a cage or a small fenced yard and expect them to behave. That's a 1950s/Maspeth mindset. It doesn't work today, and it doesn't work for NYC.
As for crime, no one is saying it's Lassie and Balto to the rescue. A lot of folks give Giuliani credit, but Bill Bratton had much more to do with the plunging crime numbers, as did demographic and national trends (end of crack epidemic, Brady bill, different age groups, COPS program, etc).
What the off-leash folks are correctly asserting, though, is that back in the bad old days of the 80s, no one wanted to go in the parks. You know who did? Dog owners. You know who goes in the parks every morning, and everyday regardless of the weather (like today's nasty rain)? Dog owners.
Why? There aren't enough dog runs, and parks are everyone's backyards. Read your Kelling and Broken Windows again. If you stop 'em before they jump the turnstiles, they won't graduate to larger crimes, right? Well, what about if you "see something, say something?" If you have large groups of people, watching their dogs, then it's less likely you'll have muggers in the parks preying on the lone or few joggers.
Vigilence and presence help deter crime. Yes, Bratton, Giuliani, and the hardworking men and women of the Finest deserve the lion's share of credit. But dog owners are out there in the hundreds of thousands everyday during off-peak times, and would be assailants take notice. That's deterence. That's all that has been said about crime.
I agree with one of the other posts - I think it was Improved Reporting. Let's get the data. That's how CompStat worked. Improved data, accountability, and follow up. Find out all we can - time, place, details. Improve it and clean it up. Just like Broken Windows - get out the few irresponsible ones, and you will see improvement. Call them the squeegee dog-owners. they aren't representative of the majority of responsible dog-owners.
But, going back to always leashing dogs - as opposed to the reasonable accomodation of limited times, and designated spots - is not the answer.
As for your meds comment, it is an attempt at provocation, and I will not dignify it with a response. It's just foolish and childish. Seriously, you don't need a tag line like that to get a response. Just lashing out won't make it better. Perhaps you might want to seek some anger management.
Cherrio!
Maybe Bob is too distraught over the Republican defeat to respond?
I tried the mace on a dog in the park around my way last week as I was riding my bike with my girlfriend . I was all I expected it would be, The dog following it's natural instincts to chase anything moving ran up on me as we passed and the dumb dog owner stood there watching the whole thing unfold . I sprayed the bitch and it ran away, The owner didn't like this at all and threaten to press charges . I did him a favor and called the police for him . They showed-up about twenty minutes later and the owner had nothing to say . Anyway, the dog came back and all that mace totally works. Also if any of you have a problem with dogs using your lawn as a toilet, Do what I did and set a few traps for the bitches ! I recommend using a mixture of hotsauce,Black pepper,and chilli peppers . Mix it up in a bowl into a liquid and spread or spray it all around your lawns . It won't kill your flowers it'll just give them a very nasty taste and smell to any dog, or cat that sniffs them . It will also burn there paws and any other body part that comes in contact with the solution if they decide to take a shit on your lawn ! They probably would which all serve the purpose of this formula . ;')
With certain areas designated for off-leash activity, it in effect makes those areas off-limits to everyone else at ALL times. Why? Well, do you want to let your kids pay on or roll around in grass that dogs were relieving themselves on for 12 hours? How about a picnic? This activity destroys park grass until you have nothing more than bald dirt. We should be trying to make our parks more beautiful and not allow domestic animals to destroy them.
Geraldine, post #92,: Your comment about dogs destroying grass is not proved out by experience. Examples abound wherever Offleash Hours take place, such as Central Park, Prospect Park, Ft. Greene Park. Those areas are lush with grass, despite being used a few hours a day by hundreds, and even thousands of Offleash dogs and their owners every week for many years.
Regarding urine in the grass: What about all the other animal excrement in the park? Bird, squirrels, mice, rats, horses all poo and pee in the park.
Responsible dog owners pick up the dog poo, and exert peer pressure on those who may be irresponsible and do not. If Offleash Hours went away, the peer pressure that currently allows thousands of dogs in many parks and which works well to keep dog poop to a minimum would go away and then, counterproductively, we would have much more poop.
Let us not forget leashed dogs also defecate within city parks, this is not new. And if cleaned up (which it is) should not pose any more of a problem in the future than it has for the past 20 successful years.
After reading most of these comments and bearing witness to the venom, threats of violence, argumentativeness, lack of willing to compromise and derisive behavior of humans on both sides of this issue, I can only conclude that we are animals - no more, no less - than dogs, with a greater capacity for reason, perhaps, but also clearly a greater capacity for violence and hate. Are we superior to dogs? I am not so sure. There would seem to be more to fear from unmuzzled people than from unleashed dogs.
Bobby H.: Apparently you were wrong (yet again). My Schadenfreude was not premature.
One hot dog with rat poison will clear the park nicely of dogs for a while