- Can we set aside a small section of each city park for dogs? Just fence in a small five-foot by 10-foot strip where dogs can be encourage to do their business. I suspect this would go a long way to eliminating any stray waste.
- Dog owners need to step up a bit. When you take your dogs out for a walk take along a few extra bags and pick up any stray waste you happen to discover. No, the mess isn't your responsibility, but we should all have an interest in keeping our parks clean.
Any others?
If you have some the Council's Neighborhoods and City Services Committee is meeting Wed. night at 7 pm at the Library.
11 comments:
don't get a dog if you don't have a yard for it. problem solved.
The solution is cats.
@10:03
I agree completely.
And if you don't have a jungle gym, you shouldn't have kids.
And if you can't afford private school tuition, you shouldn't expect an education.
And if you don't have waterfront property you shouldn't expect to enjoy views of the river.
Must be easy to get dressed in the morning when your view is so black-and-white.
none of your comparisons make any sense tom. first children, education and waterfront views aren't licensed by the city, second if you can't take care of your kids, don't have them. third if you can't afford a private school education, don't go to private school. as for the waterfront views, your analogy is too much of a stretch for me to even make sense of.
I've been to Cashman at times when the poop has been pretty severe. I also watched a dog owner neglect to pick up poop that his dog deposited right on my property. Actually, he pretended to pick it up and walked away.
I think the problem is bad enough to warrant some action. A $10 fine is way to low, and I like the concept of designated dog walking areas and dog poop receptacles.
For the record, I do not own a dog. I do have a child, but no jungle gym. I personally feel that too many people own dogs. Not because there are too many dogs, per se, but because there are too many bad dog owners.
I don't think it's necessary to own a yard, but I do feel bad for large dogs that live in small apartments. I think it's a bit cruel and selfish.
i have a dog, and i've had dogs my entire life. i'm a dog lover. but i have the space for a dog. its about not imposing my decision to own a pet on the rest of my neighbors. the neighborhood and city are under no obligation to provide a place for my dog, whether it is to exercise or to poop. i agree with anonymous, if you don't have the space for it don't get one.
ps. and for god's sake, we can't police the dog owners that let their dogs run around off their leash, there is no way you're going to be able to police owners that don't pick up after their dogs.
My point is this. The strength of communities like Newburyport is how we share of our resources.
This isn’t a community of homes sitting upon two-acre lots where every family has the room necessary for every recreational need. Instead, we get by with less land and less house by pooling our resources, creating an impressive system of parks and recreational areas (see the Rail Trail) that improves all of our homes by strengthening our community.
It’s with these resources that couples can have families while living in cramped quarters. We don’t need a backyard big enough for a swing set when they’re an entire playground down the street.
Similarly, the city makes it possible for those who enjoy the water but can't afford a home in Annisquam or Martha's Vineyard. We pool our resources to care for our riverside parks and boardwalks, which again create a stronger community.
Dog owners - who pay the same taxes as everyone else – deserve no less. They may not have a yard, but they have every right to enjoy the city’s resources in the manner they want. If that involves walking a dog, so be it. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as they abide by the rules.
(As for licensing, couldn’t one argue that the fees paid for licenses should help cover the city’s dog-related costs, such as clean ups, etc?)
And that’s the issue here: the tiny percentage of rule breakers. This is precisely why I think hiking the fee on picking up dog poop is nothing more than a symbolic gesture. Those few who flaunt the rules will continue to do so regardless of the fine because there’s limited resources to enforce the rules and issue the tickets. I’d be surprised if the majority of this minority even knows the fees will be hiked.
In my mind, the only thing this tight focus offers is political expediency. It’s easy to rally against a small group of people – reckless dog owners – and then pass hike in the fines. It’s the easy way out. No one will associate themselves with such careless people so there will be no real dialogue, and ultimately there will be no real impact.
Instead, the city should undertake a broader campaign against all litterers, not just dog owners. A broader, anti-litter campaign would resonate with more people, creating an awareness of a broader problem and a wider dialogue that might actually be heard.
And I'm not arguing that the city is obligated to provide the fenced in area. I simply thing we'll have a better shot of motivating behavior with positive direction than we would with punishment in the form of increased fines.
the city's parks are for people, not animals, just put up no dogs allowed signs and problem solved.
Even though I am an anarcho-capitalist, contributing the land and fencing for a dog park is something that a lean and mean city can do. But the park users need to clean the park themselves, and maybe get together one weekend every spring to returf the place.
BTW, new polls confirm the Arab world still hates the US. How's that "vote for Obama to improve America's place in the world" thing working out?
@ anon 11:06 Yes, let's close to parks to one of their biggest constituents. Brilliant.
Take a look at the earth day clean up someday, the crowds are largely made up of parents and dog owners.
@ PKL
I agree with you Paul. We dog owners do need to mobilize and help keep these resources clean.
@ Bean
I guess cruelty is relative. It's not as if there are a shortage of dogs in need of homes. I'm sure there are some dogs in shelters who would prefer to live in a small apartment if asked.
Post a Comment