As an ecologist and conservation biologist, the answer to this is perfectly clear. If you allow dogs in a park/wild lands/open space, you will then have much less wildlife. Dogs are harmful to the wildlife. If they dont outright kill animals, they chase them, harass them, injure them, scare them and cause all wildlife to act differently than they would without these large predators around. This kind of harassment causes the wildlife to expend time and energy on avoiding the predators that they would normally spend on other activities (i.e. finding food, mating etc)
Now you can make a case for the fact that GG park is hardly a āwildā or ānaturalā location, so allowing dogs in this relatively urban environment is less harmful than in a more isolated wilderness area. I could see arguing this way, but please do not make the case that dogs or dog owners have a ārightā to take their dogs anywhere. If i had a legal pet tiger, would it be ok if I took it into the park and let it run around? I dont think so.
The problem is enforcement, the NPS has very limited funds and canāt have rangers everywhere at all times. I love animals and have no problem with dogs coming up to me but I can understand people who donāt. There is also the matter of wildlife harassment (e.g. dogs chasing after animals). If someone got freaked out or bitten theyād probably blame the NPS even if they couldnāt be expected to have intervened so you get all or nothing rules like this.
I went hiking about a year and a half ago at a trail near there in Marin, which was officially an offleash-dogs-OK trail. The first 1/3 mile of trail, where dog owners first let their dogs offleash, was absolutely covered in dogshit, conveniently ignored by the dog owners who were clearly convinced it couldnāt possibly be their precious petās shit (hint: dogs donāt just shit when you take them on their regular shit-walks, they shit when theyāre around other dogs in an uncertain environment when territory-marking is important).
Some local passive-aggressive wag (no pun intended) who was also grossed out had then come down the trail and sprinkled silver glitter on every pile of shit so as to make the point a little more clear to the dog owners in denial.
And then there are the people who donāt take responsibility for their dog and inflict that decision on others. And please donāt imply that all dogs are as well trained and behaved as police dogs. The NPS would likely be held responsible if they knew dogs were harassing wildlife or other visitors and did nothing about it.
I would assume liability exists unless there is an exception for federally owned property Iām not aware of. It is common for things like large companies, etc to not mention liability as a concern because they donāt want to look like they are worried about money and not just safety.
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with @AcerPlatanoides ? Becuase, yes, he is employing reductio ad absurdum appropriately. Per your own link:
The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity ā so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy. [emphasis added]
Boo fucking hoo. It must be sooooooooooo hard having an animal slave just to make you happy. Iām sorry other people arenāt sharing in your utter fascination with your life and donāt want to deal with the hassle you impose on others. Go cry in the corner like all the other toddlers that donāt get their way.
Iām not clear after reading the linked pieces exactly which law or statute is being broken by the NPS. Is it a federal law, or a state law? It sounded like they were just violating their own charter, which Iām not sure is illegal, just a dick move.
Well Iāve eaten in restaurants and ridden on transit in Europe with dogs many times, and Iām confident that Iāve never caught anything from any of them. On the other hand, Iāve definitely caught colds from the children of people in restaurants (no, Iām not suggesting we ban toddlers from restaurants )
I really donāt know what our hangup is about this in North AmericaāIām unaware of any communicable diseases we can get from dogs that arenāt easily handled by washing your hands (and not eating dog poop ) Besides, even if they were allowed in, nothing would prevent shop or restaurant owners from asking people with disruptive animals to leaveā¦
Speaking from the perspective of somebody whoās spent the last six months intensively training a puppy in a large Canadian city, Iād say that many of the human-canine interaction problems we have could be improved by relaxing the rules on where dogs are allowed. Our puppy becomes markedly less focused in busier environments (though sheās improving daily) partly because theyāre less familiar and more stimulating. This in turn is partly because we must leave her at home for most non dog-oriented outings.
I agree. As a dog owner and tax payer who twice daily walks my dog in a state preserve I resent that we are restricted to the paved road, only. Supposedly dogs pose a threat to the fragile environment of the park but movies, TV programs, and commercials are filmed there on a regular basis. These film crews and actors inevitably cross the ādo not enterā line, and use everything from smoke machines to high pressure water hoses to achieve their film effect. When asked how they get away with it the response is āwe paid enough to film hereā. And then there are the ordinary tourists who constantly ignore the signs and stomp over rare plants so they can take a selfie in the woods.
I hate to see unleashed dogs there for the same reasons and also because they pose a threat to the wildlife. But isnāt there a middle ground, like a dog owner could buy a yearly license to use the trails with dog on leash and the dog could be required to wear a vest with an identifying number so it could be reported by another hiker if itās spotted off leash?
As to dogs off leash on beaches if the state insists on putting a lid on it at least it could give dog owners certain hours during the day where dogs are allowed to run off leash or designate particular beaches.
The linked articleās claim that only āpeer-reviewed, site-specific scientific researchā is a valid basis for action is a bit ludicrous. Itās almost certainly an impossible requirement to satisfy, which is why theyāve stipulated it. I see them as dishonest actors for this reason; they donāt really care about the research, all they care about is their dogās access to the park.
EDIT: Reading on, though, I note that the Parks Service seems to have dug this hole for themselves.
)
) Besides, even if they were allowed in, nothing would prevent shop or restaurant owners from asking people with disruptive animals to leaveā¦