A drone could crash, thereby fouling the park. It has to be nothingness. Ban EVERYTHING from the park. And, since nothing can go in, the park could destroy itself while no one is watching, so just burn it down.
4 Likes
Slightly OT, but this just isnāt right, at least as far as English property law goes, which I believe is the basis of much US law here. There have always been two types of property, real property, which was land and buildings, and chattels, which was everything else, certainly including animals and, at various points in history, even slaves. Land has always, (since 1066 and most probably before that) been owned by someone. The only sense in which that isnāt true is with reference to the largely theoretical way all land was technically borrowed from the monarch to begin with.
1 Like
How about you read the whole article to see where they are breaking statue to make access changes without the proper comment period or professional input.
If you canāt see the difference between ATVs and dogs I guess there is no point in discussing this with you.
4 Likes
ATVs and dogs are apples and oranges, sure; Iām just speaking to the sense of privilege some owners of both groups feel towards how they should be able to enjoy their activities in public spaces.
At least with ATVs the risk to public safety and property is more clear-cut; with dogs, thereās a lot of denial going on.
No matter how well-trained you believe an animal is, how incapable it might be of doing harm, when itās off leash, youāre simply not in control of it. Iāve been attacked twice in public parks by off-leash dogs. Iām sure the owners didnāt bring Fido to the park that day with the express intent of sicking him on strangers, but they absolutely enabled it to happen.
7 Likes
What I find strange about this scenario is that it is almost the opposite from my experience in the southern part of California. Down here, itās the state and locals who are constantly telling dog owners that their pets are not welcome (even leashed on paved areas) while the Feds donāt bat an eye. Iāve even had rangers in Point Mugu State Park ride past tourists who were smoking tell me to take my dog back to NPS/Tribal land. The NPS rangers at Cheesboro have never said a thing. It makes me wonder if the folks behind the move in the story were formerly working for California parks.
1 Like
Quite a few people seem to be dragging their personal problems into this, while ignoring the fact that this is not about dogs; itās about process and the government following existing law, not making it up on the fly. If they were deciding something you cared about in this manner youād be howling, but since theyāre enforcing your particular prejudice, youāre applauding their abuse of the law. Shame on you, all of you who are taking that side.
Looking at YOU, Bistroqs, for a start.
10 Likes
I donāt really disagree with you, I just think there has a be a sensible middle ground between a free for all and a total ban on some activities. That middle ground has to take the environment and the enjoyment of the public space by others not engaged in the activity in account as well.
Having designated areas where dogs are off leash and still abiding by rules should also work to prevent being attacked as you could avoid those areas. And if a dog is not under control and/or has a propensity for misbehavior the dog is not allowed in that area.
Fwiw, I and my dog have been attacked more than twice in our local park by off-leash dogs, hence why I would like to see some rules enforced, but not a total ban on off-leash areas because it is quite possible to have an off leash area and have things work safely for everyone.
3 Likes
Even today I do not own the land on which my property (the house) sits - it is a freehold from the Crown. In the modern sense of ownership only the monarch owns any land and technically can dispose of it as and when she sees fit. Before 1066, land was stewarded (and the distinction was a continuing cause of conflict between Saxon and Norman nobles). Norway, for example, still uses this distinction. And before the Enclosures Acts we had vast swathes of Common Land that were effectively held in trust for use by all. Property isnāt as simple a concept as some would think.
Iām sure the owners didnāt bring Fido to the park that day with the
express intent of sicking him on strangers, but they absolutely enabled
it to happen.
Was that in this park, by a dog owned by a local resident who resides within the park?
I hope for the safety of your community you pursued legal recourse through the appropriate channels against the owners of the canines. Those individuals have broken the law and acted very irresponsibly. I have also been bit by a dog. I understand.
I think where we part ways is that I still think irresponsible dog owners (and totally out of control dogs) are the exception.
I would suggest that if you donāt like ATVs, you not insist on hiking on ATV trails on public land. Similarly if you have a negative reaction to dogs, maybe you avoid the very limited areas of public land where their owners are allowed under statute to exercise them?
ATVs and dogs may be apples and oranges, but what situations you choose to put yourself in is apples to apples.
2 Likes
I hope they ban them. Itās a recreation area, I fail to see how one groupās highly invasive manner of recreation should somehow be exempt from rules on other invasive interests.
There are literally dozens of places dog owners can take their animals. They may not be as scenic as this particular site, but thatās probably because dogs have free reign over them. Which is sort of the reason why they should ban them here.
2 Likes
Not in Marin County, this is and has been one of the main options for years. Thanks for trying, tho. Please play again.
7 Likes
Iām allowed dogs where I live, but then I donāt have a truly epic deck like the one in the picture. Trade offs are a fact of life.
In this case the trade off seems to be that you must keep fighting to keep the right to have a dog. But you get to live in that place with that truly freaking epic deck. \
This is what fits very comfortably under the rubric of āFirst World problemsā. Most of my problems are also first world problems and they feel very real. But a little perspective is highly valuable in cases like this.
5 Likes
Shouldnāt the residents at least be dogfathered?
4 Likes
I realize Jason has set this up as an illegal power grab, but Iām curious as to which law the NPS has violated. They may have circumvented some public process, which is tactless, but not illegal. The NPS has a legal mandate to āconserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.ā That means park managers are responsible for the actions of your dog. If Fido should grab hold of an endangered newt, the NPS will have failed in its mission. Park leadership basically has carte blanche from the top down to meet this mandate: āthe Secretary of the Interior shall make and publish such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for the use and management of the parks, monuments, and reservations under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.ā There is no legally codified public process necessary.
I agree that the NPS may have acted with callous disregard in this matter, but I doubt that itās because they donāt understand how to manage a wide variety of properties. They manage parks from the Statue of Liberty to Yosemite, after all.
Iām also a little dismayed at the quick jump to dismiss this as unscientific. The evidence for this assertion is a link to an overwrought page, āThe Smoking Taserā, on a website with an ax to grind. The main gripe seems to be that there is no site-specific science. But we hardly need anything site-specific to prove that dogs have detrimental effects on wildlife.
I am not unsympathetic. I have two canine companions, and I take them in the woods, running loose, often. But the tone of this post, describing an agency trying to protect a public resource as a big guāmmint thug using junk science to take away our rights, strikes me as more Ted Cruz than Boing Boing.
I hope you reach an amicable agreement, and that your dogs keep their room to move. But I also hope you can see that the National Park Service has a higher purpose than creating high-end dog runs.
9 Likes
That would solve an awful lot of problems in one fell swoop.
1 Like
āŖ One of these things is not like the other. ā«
People, as distinguished from children and other chattel/personal behaviors.
1 Like
I like your position on this.
1 Like
This maneuver is also being attempted by the Harper government here in Canuckistan. I really appreciate your perspective. Thanks!
The federal government, both the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, manage large tracts of land which are managed as you describe, like forest preserves. Theyāre called wilderness areas. You can go in with your dog, on your horse, whatever. These areas are completely primitive, unlike the Adirondack Park, which, as Iām sure you know, has over 100,000 residents and 40 sawmills.
And I donāt know which National Parks youāve been visiting, but theyāre hardly a stay-on-the-ride Disneyland experience. They do have visitor centers, and many feature short day hikes and viewpoints for the general population. However, the big, wild parks like those in the southwest also have huge backcountry areas open for exploration. Youāre not limited to any route or trail, so long as youāre not using a vehicle.
While itās true the NPS tries encourages tourismāthe parks are intended for the people, after allāmanagers are resistant to turning their parks into the sort of recreation sites favored by private industry (how many golf courses are in the Adirondack Park?). Take a look at Moab, Utah for an example. While Canyonlands National Park is a popular mountain bike destination, bicycle are only allowed on the four-wheel-drive routes used by other vehicles. Park managers fully understand that opening singletrack trails to mountain bike use would dramatically increase visitation, but they steadfastly maintain that their mandate requires them to manage the park as a preserve, not a play area. Meanwhile, adjacent park Dead Horse Point, which is state-operated, in busy installing mountain bike trails just to attract visitors.
Iāve known, and worked closely with, superintendents of two major national parks, and I can attest their main motivation is protecting the public resource, plain and simple. Their tight control over commercial operations is intended to make sure the parks remain public. While there are voices in government which would turn the parks over to private use, theyāre not within the NPS.
5 Likes
Canada has a reasonable approach to dogs and our National parks (no general rule, but park-specific regulations exist). Regarding this U.S. example, I am not beholden to a specific position. I can appreciate dogs being in this park, as they are fun to be with in the wild (excepting those times when they bring a bear or cougar back to you), but if their density has become an issue, I can appreciate the park authority taking measures to attenuate the problems that may come with frequency and density.
Also, it should be noted that, for a gentleman making a claim regarding non-scientific processes used by the park authority in determining their response, Jasonās own article is quite obviously non-scientific, and heavily biased. Jason makes unverifiable claims regarding the amount of humans who take his position, relative to those who do not. As well, his references are non-objective and do not provide evidence to support their position. His article, as such, instead has impelled me to question the veracity of his position. Again, I like dogs and appreciate how Canada allows dogs into great swaths of most of our national parks, yet this article seems much more like an emotional broadside than anything reasoned. If his position is sound and reasonable, please illustrate this to me. I want to be convinced!
4 Likes
