I sure feel sorry for dog owners - well, the ones who are responsible people, anyway. Is there nowhere they can take their dogs to run?
I just read in the Daily News of "problems" at West Newbury's Mill Pond recreation area that are forcing a crackdown on dogs - and people.
The recreation area, off Route 113 not far from the Newburyport line, is a popular place for people around the area to fish, walk their dogs, ride through on horseback or cool off with a swim.
The area has particularly seen a rise in out-of-town dog owners from places like Newburyport (Not Newburyport, but places like Newburyport - doesn't anyone know grammar anymore?), which some attribute to the new parking fees at Maudslay State Park. Many out-of-towners incorrectly refer to the area as "West Newbury's Dog Park," West Newbury police Chief Lisa Holmes said.
However, there is a leash law and a no-swimming rule at the pond, rules often ignored by visitors. This forces selectmen to try and strike a balance between allowing summer fun and ensuring the area is safe.
Apparently a barking dog spooked a horse and it threw its rider. Ummm ... anyone who is riding a horse should expect that they might be thrown at any time for any reason. My family used to own horses; that horse is skittish. Plus, obviously the dog would have been barking whether or not it was on a leash.
The rope swing has also caused some problems, including attracting teens late at night, foul language, substance abuse and injuries. Recently, a young woman fell off the swing and injured herself enough to require medical assistance.
"It is not only a public safety issue, but it is also a public nuisance," Mill Pond Committee Chairman Charlie Reynolds said.
Well, I'd rather have teens congregating in the woods than on Inn Street. Geesh, it's no fun to be a teen anymore, is it?
This is life. Dogs bark; horses buck; teens hang out and do risky things. No wonder everyone is so tense! This has become an era in which we are overly zealous in protecting people from their own stupidity, or carelessness, ability to have fun, or to keep a pet.
OK, so there is a leash law there, or there is not? Selectmen have received numerous complaints over the past year about increased problems at the recreation area, primarily stemming from dogs running off leash in areas from which they are barred.
But dog owners be aware - Newbury has no leash law. Dogs are banned on the beach from May 15 to September 15 (and at all times on the Refuge, which is federal property) but some enterprising Newbury landowner with a big field, I'll bet, could make himself or herself a real hero by setting aside a portion as a designated dog park.
I'd also bet dog owners would even pay, or help out with maintenance, trash bins and whatever else is necessary.
This is a real problem, that needs to be addressed. There are a lot of dogs in this city, and they need to run. I don't own a dog, but if I did, I'd be maybe looking to move to a town in which my pet is more welcome.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Thank you for bringing this up. Your point about a tense society is spot-on. I adopted a dog a few months ago and have brought her to Mill Pond several times. We obey the rule for keeping your dog away from the dock area, and have her off-leash only in the woods and at the "goose-poop" beach. It angers me that some dog-owners are not observing the rules, especially the one "clean up after you dog", but the dog-owners we know are respectful and responsible, and for an area full of wonderful dogs and their owners, the lack of dog-accepting areas is surprising. I, for one, would be very happy to contribute to make a dog park happen.
You're very welcome, anonymous. I, too, know many respectful and responsible dog owners. I feel really sorry for the poor dogs who are not able to get enough exercise and the unfortunate dog owners who have to drive for miles in order to let their dogs run.
Gillian,
Spot on as usual, I've been thinking about picking up a dozen head of cattle and look forward to the city providing me a place to graze them.
Didn't say the city had to provide it, did I? Well, did I?
I love my cow, but I keep her in check at all times and always pick up after her, even when we go to Mill Pond.
And besides, Bubba, there's probably an old ordinance still on the books providing for you a place to graze your potential cattle.
Keep them away from my cow, though.
Everyone says they clean up after their pets, but if everyone did, I wouldn't have to dodge their droppings....When I lived in town my lawn was a regular stop for pooping dogs....
Don't get me wrong, I love dogs and so I never complain when one jumps on me or runs across my beach towel.
We don't have a tense society, we have a society where people don't want to make choices or take responsiblity for them. I don't have a dog because I don't have the space, plain and simple.
oh sorry- I just realized I got your last name wrong.
I have to (UGH! agree with Bubba on this one and also agree with Anonymous too.
Dogs and children are the charge of their 'owners' and there are rules governing both (a lot of other rules also that are stretched to accommodate special treatments assumed)(i also don't like sand on my beach blanket and feel that responsible parents are charged with assuring the general public that others can enjoy the same space as their family with out being 'bullied' by their charges, same as dogs, but with out the licensees, tags and leash's (unfortunately in some cases).
Enforce the laws constantly and fairly they will be effective. Allow discrepancies and they will not be effective (ie. locals can run their dogs and 'visitors can not). Close the use of the area to non residents if there is a real problem and then let residents run a muck.
Anonymous has the right train
n of thought (Gillian too). Get together and Buy, rent or lease a 'private' area and support the rights to own and exercise domestic animals. A limit on Pet Licenses should be treated as well as Liquor licenses are. Same thought, control the "animals'.
Gillian, the 'common pastures' are for all use of 'livestock',and I would argue that the laws still exist for their determinative use, but I would stop short of listing a domestic dog or cat as 'livestock' ;) but who knows, stranger interpretation's have been seen from stranger people!
Re your point about teens in the woods versus hanging out on the street (in this case Inn Street or elsewhere downtown) --- still agree with Jane Jacobs on this one.
An approach sensed made sense before ever reading "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" (c) 1961 a half generation after it was first published.
[Still a great read by the way, especially relevant to the resumed "progress" on development downtown.]
Sense it is best to keep the younger generation in view (with their activities in purview) on Inn Street.
Comity
Pedro, I'm not saying to not enforce the laws, but if what I read in the story is correct, it seems that there are places at Mill Pond where you can let your dog off the leash. And I did qualify everything right at the start as being for "responsible" dog owners.
That being said, I agree about the children: when did it become notable to encounter a well-behaved child?
And the common pastures thing - I meant it for Bubba's herd of cattle, not for the dogs!
Comity, I can see that point, but teens don't want to always be "in view," even when they're doing nothing "wrong" at all! I don't condone "bad" behavior, but let's face it, we all did pretty much the same things ... kids need to have space, like everyone else, and if they're caught breaking the law, they need to face consequences, like everyone else.
Keeping them always in view, in my mind, is raising up a generation of people who are incapable of doing anything on their own (without being told what to do) and can't take the hit when are challenged.
I used to go fishing when I was quite young, with my cousins. We rode our bikes everywhere. Nowadays, a kid is lucky to be able to leave the yard without a vigilant parent in tow!
You have to make a "date" to play with your friends ... where is the spontaniety, the being a kid in all this?
Actually, the 100+ acres we purchased for open space in the common pasture would be a great place for a dog park - of course the open space people will oppose it (as they did ball fields)and the dog people will say it's too far away. The fact is, no single dog park will suffice as it would be inconvenient to anyone not in dog walking distance.
Of course, having some experience in this area, any dog park will become soiled beyond belief as creation of such a park allows for even less enforcement as the users then demand another more suitable (non soiled) location.
That's also the destiny of the waterfront parks (if built), a giant dog park for downtown neighborhoods....
As for a private dog park - the liability insurance alone would consume any revenue generated.
Again, I love dogs but recognize that the CITY is not a viable place for (large) dog ownership.
As for the younger generation, I have a few of them working for me and I'm amazed at how easily they give up....About once a week I say to them "You're right, this is too hard, let's call the CEO and tell him we need to close the place down..."
Oooooo, so self conscious Gillian. I did not refer to your making any of the 'assumptions' you stated. I read that the 'common pasture' gig was in reference to Babbles herd of imaginary cattle. Maybe the suggestion of using the under utilized 'common pastures' could be an angle for those who need an area to provide exercise for their replacements for children, since the ownership of ones own property is not a requirement when choosing to commit to a relationship with a domesticated animal. All is well as long as this would be a 'private' as opposed to a 'public' organization. The Newburyport DPW does not have the manpower to scoop poop as it mows now, so a self monitored and self financed proposal would gain more support City wide rather than another "give me something and bill the City because I am in need program" anyway. A purchase or lease by a registered 'association' would allow the 'membership' to control the access and conditions of their own breeds.
The 'story' as published in the DN did give the impression that West Newbury is as 'elite' as Newburyport in that they are confused as to what laws to enforce, whom to enforce them upon and when to enforce them. God forbid they cite one of their own that is clearly 'breaking a law'!
Teens cannot be left to their own amusement, that is why they are teens and not adults. Someone must be responsible for their actions at all times because they cannot be held responsible. Ergo, parents or laws (refer to previous statement as to how and why laws are enforced).
So, where do you read that I was in any way criticizing your statements? LOL
Pedro.Tdog
OK ... wow.
Bubba, I guess I agree with what you're saying (and definitely about the open space people), but I see a lot of people driving to the PI beach off season to run their dogs. I really did not consider the liability issue of a private facility. It could be a dog club (isn't there something like that on Rte. 1, in Newbury?)
Pedro, I didn't say you were criticizing me! I was just winding you up.
But for right now, I have to run off to the other side of the island and hopefully get some work.
Post a Comment