Jamaica Plain News reports the city Parks Department says dogs running loose in the Beecher Street Park is just not a good idea.
Now apply the same rules to the Arboretum and Millennium!
I like dogs, but Rogers park in Brighton has turned into an off leash dog park.
No space to play soccer anymore.
The Arboretum doesn't allow off-leash dogs.
Dog owners are just spoiled, selfish jackasses who won't follow the rules unless there's a cop breathing down their neck.
Dog owners are just spoiled, selfish jackasses who won't follow the rules unless there's a cop breathing down their neck
Do you have any reason to believe that dog owners are any more likely to be spoiled, selfish jackasses than non dog-owners?
The price of a designer dog and all its accessories
That's a bit of a canard. Over the course of its life, the costs of owning a "designer dog" -- food, vet bills, etc. are, at least in theory, pretty much the same as the costs of owning a rescue dog from the pound. Only difference is the purchase price, which is a drop in the bucket compered to the lifetime costs of owning a dog. Mixed breeds are more likely to be healthy than purebreds, and so less likely to need extensive, expensive care, so the wonderful, adoptable pound mutts do have that going for them.
And all over the streets in fact convinces me that irresponsible dog owners are bigger more selfish jackasses.
Let's compare with litterers:
They're selfish and acting like dirtbags but they're not leaving damn FECES everywhere.
Good Lord, I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out.
Sure there are also human animals that I've seen change diapers on restaurant tables or leave diapers on a beach but some dog owners break all the rules.
No leashes or pooper scoopers or even adequate training needed for their babies. The dogs and the owners are too special.
I wasn't asking for evidence that there are jackass dog owners. Of course there are. I was asking for evidence that dog owners were more likely to be jackasses than non-dog-owners.
And much more selfish. Leaving your pet's waste in parks or sidewalks for kids to possibly play in or pedestrians to step in is much much worse behavior than any other non-criminal selfish jackass move I can think of.
Sorry, I misread your question. I have no data that dog owners are more likely to be selfish jackasses but the misbehavior itself is much, much worse.
And, while I can't offer data, it is my opinion that someone who gets a dog while living in a very urban area with no private space is in fact already acting more selfishly than someone who does not. You're subjecting your neighbors to an animal and all that entails to meet your own desires. That's by definition selfish behavior.
Unfortunately, it has been my experience that very, very few city dog owners are unselfish or considerate enough to prevent their dogs from taking away from their neighbors' quality of life. I just don't see extremely well-trained dogs behaving properly in the city. Nor do I see many considerate owners actually keeping their dogs on leash and away from people. I do see people lying to claim their dogs are service animals. I do see people putting small dogs into the child seats in shopping carts. I do see people not cleaning up after their dogs and I do see dog crap everywhere. I do have dogs come up and sniff and slobber on me.
I actually like dogs and have owned them in the past but I have zero tolerance for (puppies excluded) untrained dogs and irresponsible owners.
I see in the Arboretum is directed at dogs off leash.
No enforcement for climbing trees and breaking limbs, for motorcycles that race through, for bicycles off paved roadways, for picking flowers, for large fireworks displays, etc. etc.
you own a dog!
I walk my dog on a leash. Not sure what your point is.
Most dog walkers in the main part of the Arb also walk their leashed dogs.
What you're observing is a difference in who enforces what.
The Arboretum staff will speak to visitors about bicycles, flowers, climbing trees, etc., but Arboretum staff has been physically attacked so many times for speaking to visitors about unleashed dogs that management decided it was unsafe for them to address that anymore, and enforcement of that is left to park rangers and police. The park rangers and police don't talk to visitors about bicycles, flowers, and trees. They are in the park to respond to threats to the safety of staff and visitors - including unleashed dogs and their owners - not for botanical reasons.
the different enforcement people. I do not understand why a Boston Park ranger selectively enforces park rules.
Animal Control is concerned with off leash dogs. But rangers should enforce all park rules.
Arboretum staff is there Monday to Friday from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., hours where the fewest people, including people walking their dogs, use the Arboretum. Unfortunately the people who abuse the park tend to be there later in the day.
There is virtually no police or security presence in the Arboretum. The police come when called.
Looks like a complete shithole b/c it was overrun by dogs. I'd be fighting this tooth and nail if I lived nearby and esp. if I had kids.
Keep the damn dogs on leash, clean up after them (crazy concept, right?) and improve it for all citizens and neighbors to enjoy. Responsible dog owners included.
So sick of obnoxious entitled dog owners.
Has it ever occurred to you that if you provide a designated (and fenced in) area for people to let their dogs run off leash, they will be less likely to do it in the other areas where leashes are required?
If you want space for a large dog, move to the suburbs. Don't expect the city to change to provide space for your large dog.
And if you want to play golf, tennis, swim in a pool, cycle on a bike path, run in a park, play baseball, soccer, football, softball, hear outdoor concerts, and on and on, move to the suburbs. The city can only support all the above activities with our tax money but not a few dog parks.
Those activities and spaces generally don't involve people requiring to pick up waste.
Also, they include fees or can be used for other activities.
There already are dog parks. Golf tends to have fees associated with it. Open spaces can be used for more than running and concerts.
It's a well-known phenomenon that building more highways just leads to more traffic. One wonders whether the same effect happens with dog parks: will creating more dog parks cause more people with dogs to live in the area, or more people in the area to get dogs? Will more facilities create induced demand? Would it be a good or a bad thing for the non-dog owning public of Boston that the city get a reputation as a bad place to own a dog?
The best solution to the highway-traffic vicious circle is congestion pricing. What would be the analogy here?
A dog license currently costs 15 bucks in this city. That's barely paying for processing its own paperwork, let along the external costs that dogs bring to non dog-owning citizens.
Set the cost of a dog license high enough to pay for more dog recreational facilities and more animal control staff. Make sure city dog parks are only accessible to city licensed dogs.
Another option would be to set up a separate program like Brookline's. There, a dog license is only 20 bucks, but there is an extra fee for dogs to participate in the city's recreational facilities, ranging from 50 bucks for an individual dog to 200 bucks for a dog walker. That helps pay for the extra cost - damage, pollution, fencing, policing - use of open space by dogs costs the city.
Great ideas, Sock Puppet. All should be implemented. Let"s put a plain clothes animal control officer out there enforcing leash laws and pooper scooper aggressively
I'd like to see a DNA registry to test crap that wasn't picked up and then fine the owner heavily. Maybe charge them with some public health law to criminalize the behavior, if it isn't already.
Enough with the crap on the streets, dog people. You need to litererally clean up your act.
In theory I think the idea of people paying for what they use here is a sound one. In practice the actual amount money being spent by the city to accommodate the dog owning population (which is not insignificant) is so negligible at this point that it's absurd to even be considering a tax.
In other words, I'd be happy to pay such a tax, but in exchange I would expect world-class dog play facilities, daily dog poop pickups in all city parks and poop bag dispensers everywhere. Oh, and of course vigilant enforcement of leash laws in all areas not designated as dog parks.
Don't move to the city expecting it to provide the same amount of space for dogs that a suburb has, or that it should take parks meant for a variety of activities and set them aside for dog related ones.
Boston is big enough to be able to set aside some space for dogs. You might want to go visit the dog park that's already on the Southwest Corridor, in the South End.
Similar to how building more roads just leads to more use, building dedicated dog parks could encourage even more dog users until there's not enough space.
The main point is that it's at best unreasonable to move to a city expecting it to provide the space for those activities that suburbs do.
Like the "dog park" or "off leash area" at Sheepfold that people declared outside of the leash law, badgered others away from, and then finally got official sanction for?
Only to continue to not pick up after their dogs to the point where people are now using the "but there's dog poop everywhere at Sheepfold" excuse when ticketed in the Fells for letting their dogs run off leash and swim in the reservoirs?
Yeah, law abiding people use the dog parks and that is a good thing for humans and dogs alike. Yes, there should be both more dog parks and more enforcement. Meanwhile, the rest of the irresponsible and entitled "off hinge" crowd just continues to make up excuses for doing whatever the hell they want and vilifying anyone who gets in the way.
is leash only and has been for years.
So now this "park" will sit unused. Do people know its nothing but a small fenced in patch of dirt? Its not like folks were picnicking there .... Look at it on google maps for god sake. No one in their right mind, with Franklin park, the arboretum, and forest hills cemetery within a couple miles would choose to go to beecher park for the afternoon.
Now theres no off leash areas for dogs in JP...great.
"The small size of the site and the proximity to residences and community
gardens are not compatible with the Boston Parks and Recreation
Department standards for a successful dog recreation area."
This is stupid. I believe there's only 2 "official" dog parks in the city, because, well, it's a dense urban area with very little open space. I don't know where you could have one if not having it near people is a criterion.
For years, Tape, this site was fine because Joe Porcelli lived next door and made sure it was clean, that the patrons kept an eye on their dogs, that no one abused the privilege of using it by bringing multiple dogs at a time, et cetera. But he moved out of state, and the park now smells on humid days, and dog fights occur regularly. Too bad, because I agree that we need more dog parks.
I don't have a dog in this particular fight (apologies but the phrase fits).
But government officials constantly have to weigh differing opinions and make a decision.
Too often, they are afraid to offend a constituency, and then delete deals where everyone loses, or try to hide their decisions in fine print or Friday afternoon policy changes that are never explained.
I appreciate that Mr Cook says that they weighed a lot of input, and although they hate to disappoint one group, the other group won for now, for these reasons.
Refreshing. Thanks, Mr Cook.
Likely to work as well as the "ban" that is currently in effect at the Arboretum and other city parks. There is literally ZERO enforcement in the Arbs. If the city is interested in an untapped revenue stream, they could ticket owners of off-leash dogs - almost every dog is off leash on Pete's Hill. Otherwise, the City should just remove the ban, and signs etc. That way people won't be "upset" when I tell them that they need to have their dogs on a leash.
enforcement in the Arboretum. It's not on a regular timetable. But I did see the Park Rangers driving up Peter's Hill this morning at about 8:30 a.m. They have keys to the gates. And I see them on a regular basis in the main part of the Arboretum.
My understanding is that most of the unleashed dogs in the Arboretum are on Peter's Hill, where I seldom walk, so I can't really speak to that area.
Although I'm neither a Jamaica Plain resident or a dog-owner, I tend to side with the nay-sayers, including the city Parks department on this issue. It seems like it's all too easy for things to really spiral out of control when there are a lot of dogs running around loose, and unleashed, in one place.
It IS a dog park. I never go there with my dog but it's not a park that anyone else would use for any other purpose--it's basically a big stretch of dirt, mud and wood chips, the size of a house lot. The fact is, if you have a dog who needs off-leash exercise, there aren't a lot of safe options around here. The SWC is pretty busy with pedestrians, cyclists, kids, etc and cars on both sides. Franklin Park is great but has no enclosed off-leash space. This park really is too close to homes though--I'm sure it gets noisy and smelly.
As noted above; it is NOT a designated dog park.
No. It's not a dog park. It's a place people were taking their dogs.
Taking dogs someplace doesn't make it an actual dog park.
and have a look, you'll see that it is nothing BUT a dog park. There is literally zero reason that anyone would use is for anything else. As I said above, I can see why it doesn't work as a dog park but my God--I hope they don't turn it into some lame little pocket park when we're actually surrounded with great REAL parks within a 5-10 minute walk.
But yeah, looking at it in Google Street View, it doesn't look like anything other than a dog park.
That said, was it technically ever a dog park? Did the neighbors say it was okay to be a dog park? Did some dog owners just decide that this would be a dog park and do all the renovations on their own, or did the city make the capital investments (for the fence and double door)?
It was just a place that a lot of people found convenient to take their dogs. The city decided to place restrictions on it.
It's not a dog park. It was being used as a dog park on an unofficial basis, but it was not a designated dog park.
It's not a dog park.
...where that kind of space is hard to come by? I would like a horse, but probably doesn't make sense if I'm living in a city.
Move to the suburbs and get a bigger yard where there are more parks if you want a large dog. Don't move somewhere then assume it's going to change to fit your everything you do.
Try ACTIVE dogs. My niece has a mastiff and she doesn't require a dog park - just some good walking time. She doesn't fetch, chase frisbees, etc. Ditto for my neighbor's boxer. Another neighbor has a Jack Russell terrierist that needs to run run run run run and chase chase chase chase chase bark bark bark bark bark annoy annoy annoy annoy annoy.
People who buy purebreds and don't do the research to see if they will fit with where and how they live are dimwits. I don't have a lot of sympathy for somebody who gets a Blue Heeler pup and doesn't have the time and space and energy to give the dog the active outdoor life she needs.
However, many people pick out mutts and are told things about the dog's temperament at the time, or have no real information on the dog, and then come to find out who the dog is and what the dog is like once they have chilled into a new home. Dogs are individuals - mutts even more so - and it isn't always easy to know some of these things when you take them in,
OK, that's nitpicking. Large dogs cover more ground with less effort.
-ignore the other post that said less instead of more please
Case in point, I have a chihuahua. By all accounts the quintessential city dog. But unless she is allowed to get out for socialization and exercise, she tends to irritate my immediate neighbors by running around the house and barking at every single noise on the street. Also, the dog park provides a way for her to practice her social skills with other dogs, something that many small dogs are badly in need of.
And there's no f'ing way I'm cleaning up its crap!
And I'll call it a service animal and become very belligerent when challenged on not acting appropriately with said animal!
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2022 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy