A concerned citizen files a 311 complaint asking the city to get rid of the horse-chestnut trees at the Eden Street park:
The horse chestnut trees at Eden St. Park are toxic to dogs. At least two dogs have died recently after eating something poisonous here. Can you please remove/replace the trees? Link
Earlier:Dog walkers avoiding a park in Charlestown after dog dies.Citizen complaint of the day: Dogs getting high in the North End
Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Pro tip: don't walk your dogs in that park then.
Like walking them with a muzzle or head collar and keeping them on a leash.
Also training them not to eat random shit, if they are capable of getting that.
Don't remove the trees; remove the dogs.
Remove all the people too.
Many dog owners don't know the trees are poisonous. A sign saying as much would save heartache on the part of dog owners and 311 complainers.
Except that dog owners are largely illiterate, judging from my recent trips to Millennium Park.
Ever drive on the interstate? Unless there is traffic, everyone exceeds the posted limits. You probably do too. Dog owners feel the same way about leash laws.
I don't own a dog but unlike most people on UHub, I don't think an off-leash dog is a serious crime. I know dog owners who find the occasional $50 fine for off-leash pets to be well worth the cost.
Because the majority of drivers ignore speed limits is not sufficient evidence that they are illiterate. In fact, literacy is required for getting a driver's license, and I doubt that you believe most drivers are unlicensed.
The signage proposal addresses dog-owner ignorance, which is an entirely credible possibility.
As for the people who unleash their dogs, if their pooch knocks down an elderly person, or nips a child, they are going to regret their "worth the cost" decisions. Now if you claim that all the dogs are obedience-trained, I am not going to believe that, either.
You need a license to own a dog too, you know.
Exceeding the speed limit causes collisions which hurt/kill millions of people and costs billions due to vehicle damage, lost time, lawsuits, etc. Dog related mishaps account for a tiny percentage of harm compared to speeding cars. You take a bigger risk crossing the street to the park than from encountering a dog within the park.
If you cared about public safety you'd be far more concerned about vehicle speeds.
People should leash their dogs in public areas and most do -- you only notice the ones who don't. But if you're doing to get mad at dog owners you better not break a single law yourself, including speeding.
As for the signs, warning people about the toxicity of trees will help the law-abiding dog owners and their pets. If you're right and off-leash dog owners are illiterate, you can take pleasure in watching their dogs suffer and die while the on-leash owners learn to avoid the park.
Can you stop putting words in my mouth? I never said or implied that "off-leash dog owners are illiterate." Your arguments are so reliant on irrelevant straw men, it's hard to know where to begin, so I won't, but please stop lying about what anyone can see I've written.
Uhub posters stop acting like an off leash dog is a serious crime.
Because they are harmful...
How about you and your scofflaw friends stop pretending it's not a crime at all. The city says
Responsible dog owners should follow leash laws:
State law requires that you have your dog on a leash when you're off your property.
Than putting a cone out on the street in front of your house when an inch of slush has just fallen, I suppose.
As for the people who unleash their dogs, if their pooch knocks down an elderly person, or nips a child, they are going to regret their "worth the cost" decisions.
As are the people who ignore the speed limit, if their behavior causes an accident that kills a family.
What does this have to do with poisoned dogs?
In that interstate highways were typically built for higher speeds than the speed limit. None of the parks in Boston were built as dog parks. I would say that it is akin to truckers ignoring “cars only” or vehicle height signs, even down to the rest of us being annoyed.
Dogs have been in Boston since before any parks were built. Surely when farmers grazed livestock on the common, dogs helped them. It is regulation of dogs that is relatively recent. I would also say that there is little foundation to know on what speed our highways are built for. Certainly the harm of exceeding the speed limit is greater than an annoyance.
I would also say that there is little foundation to know on what speed our highways are built for.
Have you ever heard of a discipline called engineering? Yes, they can figure these things out, and they build roads based on the calculation of maximum speed.
You got me with the first part, but then you stretched it out and it all collapsed. Sorry.
Perhaps one engineer can calculate what speed our interstates were designed for but it seems that not all road engineers agree on the subject. And speeders certainly have no idea. And you don't either it seems. Racetracks are "based on the calculation of maximum speed", not roads. This kind of thinking is exactly the bias that makes our streets unsafe.
Surely when farmers grazed livestock on the common, dogs helped them.
Don't be so sure. Of my many relatives who had herds of dairy cows, exactly zero owned dogs. Dogs are useful for herding sheep. Cows don't need that level of coercion. I see that it used to be legal to graze sheep on the Common, but I don't know how common it was. The grazing habits of sheep make them unpopular with cattle-owners.
And yes, highways are definitely designed to support speeds much higher than 55 mph.
Dogs came over on the Mayflower. There were sheep, pigs and goats in Massachusetts, before there were cattle. And there were sheep on the common before and after cows were there.
Your wikipedia link points out that there is disagreement on the subject. And the fact that the road itself can handle the speed doesn't make it a safe practice.
Fruit of the poison tree.
Stop peeing on the trees, dogs.
It makes them angry!
But those 8 years flew by..
Remind me, how long have horse chestnut trees and dogs been in the Boston.
Red DANGER signs would be effective. This isn't about literacy, it's about perceived threat. Experience has taught motorists they can largely ignore unenforced speed limit signs but not stop signs where the perceived risk is a collision, not just a fine. My guess is that it's the same for dog signage. If a sign "warns" of an almost never enforced $50 fine, people will learn to dismiss it. If the sign warns, DANGER Horse-Chestnuts found here are fatal to dogs, the perceived threat is death of a beloved pet, not a token municipal fine. If done properly, signs can be effective and non-intrusive.
Or maybe just don't let your dog eat random crap off of the ground?
Dogs piss on trees, so I guess that makes it even.
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 2020 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy