A Dog-Owner's Manifesto
Dennis C. During
a significant minority of the population (more numerous and frequent in
their use of parks than joggers, bird-watchers, and other classes of park
users).
Dog owners do not ask to have dogs off-leash in every park and every hour of
every day.
Dog owners require virtually nothing in terms of park facilities and
maintenance.
Dog owners accept fairly low-quality real estate.
Dog owners presence discourages criminal use of parks.
Dog owners tend to be fairly responsible about cleaning up after their dogs
and controlling them.
Dog attacks and lawsuits are rare events.
Dogs have co-evolved with humans for 17-30,000 years and are, by far, the
most responsive of all species to human needs.
Even the imagery of the good life does not include dogs on leashes, but does
include dogs running free.
Why is it that our Westchester elected representatives cannot be bothered to
make some kind of accommodation ? Why is it that they seem only to listen
to folks with fears, allergies, and ignorance about dogs ?
Why are these representatives so unrealistic about how parks are used ?
Most people NEVER go to parks in any given year. Even children don't very
often nowadays, except in connection with organized athletic activities.
"Nature study" field trips involve parks at most for one day a year for each
grade. Those folks who do go to parks use them very rarely indeed,
predominantly on warm, sunny weekend days. Parks with facilities such as
restrooms, water fountains, and picnic facilities (all surprisingly costly
to build and maintain) don't actually succeed in attracting users.
Nevertheless, in a triumph of fantasy over experience, they insist on
attempting to make parks that remind them and their political contributors
of the parks they enjoyed when they were young (usually a few decades ago).
We have an obesity epidemic and are encouraged to walk. But politicians and
media have made us believe that our parks are too dangerous to use. When we
respond by taking a dog with us and making it a social event, they insist
that dogs be on leash, despite the danger to those holding the leashes of
dogs interacting while on-leash. They profess to be concerned about safety
but cannot extend that concern to the safety of those who must hold onto
leashes on icy and muddy paths. Is dog-ownership to be limited only to
those inclined to jog at the same pace as their dogs ? Should those of us
who no longer have children at home, who may also have lost a spouse, not be
permitted to have a dog big enough to serve as protection ? Should be only
have toy dogs or virtual dogs ?
Are our elected representatives and civil servants too stupid to be able to
come up with an accommodation ? Can they only draft laws forbidding things
? Can they come up with ways for us to use parks that reflect current
reality or will they remain slaves to their fantasies ? Is their concept of
democracy broad enough to allow government action that supports non-harmful
activities like human-dog exercise or is it a craven concept that merely
involves catering to the majority at the expense of not-so-organized groups
of citizens like dog owners ? Would we be better off with a less
supportive, but also less intrusive government ?
Dennis C. During
dcdu...@gmail.com
(914) 663-8203