Hey, there! Log in / Register
Arboretum seeks help cracking down on morons who let their dogs loose
By adamg on Thu, 09/29/2016 - 2:27pm
The Arnold Arboretum reports the guy who let his dog loose to attack two weed-eating goats the other day at least got a fine, but now is asking other people fed up with random wildlife being ripped up by dogs to help catch irresponsible pet owners who disregard the signs about keeping them leashed:
The Arboretum plans to continue the [goat] program despite this disturbing incident.
This unfortunate and violent incident illustrates the potential dangers caused by dog owners who allow their animals to roam off-leash at the Arboretum, a violation of the law as well as park regulations.* In addition to incurring injuries to staff, pedestrians, and bicyclists, off-leash dogs also pose threats to leashed dogs and wildlife species in the landscape.
The staff of the Arboretum requests the public’s help in ensuring the safety of all by keeping dogs leashed at all times in the Arboretum landscape. Please report any off-leash pets to Boston Animal Control (617.635.5348) or Boston Police (617.343.5630).
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
No need to call Animal Control or BPD . . .
Dear Arboretum,
There is no need for the public to call Animal Control or BPD - just have them show up to Fairview Street Gate literally any afternoon. They can take their pick, off-leash dogs everywhere.
Hardo Alert
Arboretum staff maintains an entire park for resident use while their scientists conduct research on site but should police dogs now too? You should call the Park Rangers directly and conduct a stakeout. You're ready.
The whole point is to have
The whole point is to have people to police their own animals. Pretty simple concept to keep your dog on a leash. Not sure if my post warranted a "Hardo" comment, but you're right buddy, just let the dogs run wild, sounds like there isn't any problem at all.
I missed the part where you
I missed the part where you expected Arboretum staff to police dogs. I thought you were suggesting the BPD or animal control show up, no?
Sub-optimal plan
I realize that the Arboretum staff may be stretched thin, but I think asking someone else to call the BPD or Animal Control over an unleashed dog isn't going to be effective. I'm totally in support of the regulation, but I'm not going to call the cops over something like this, and I'm guessing many other people feel that way. There should be a number at the Arboretum to call, and then they can decide whether to get the police involved or not.
PARK RANGERS 6176357383
leave it to me to do their work yet again
Oh, thank god!
Not sure how the rest of us would make it through our day.
Woohoo
Let's see if this works.
How about off-leashe hours
How about off-leashe hours once a day - before 9 or 10 AM? In the areas away from the main gate? Even off the walkways? Certainly away from the goats. In NYC both Central Park and Riverside Park have off-leashe hours which are well adhered to - before 9AM and after 9 PM. Why must Boston always default to punishment and keeping things just they way they have always been. There are more people with dogs; dogs have been proven to be a health and social benefit to their families; not all dog owners are idiots. Sure there is a problem but problems solved collectively can lead to positive change.
Off leash dogs kill wildlife.
Off leash dogs kill wildlife. Get it?
How about no?
There are public parks for which off-leash dogs can be integrated. This isn't one of them.
Not really a park
The Arnold Arboretum isn't a city park, although it is patrolled by state park rangers. It's the private property of Harvard University. They are not obliged to allow dogs at all, let alone off-leash.
A point of fact
Perhaps irrelevant to this discussion, but the arboretum is actually owned by the city of Boston and is on renewable 99 year leases to Harvard for $1 per year.
Arboretum says...
... it was 1000-year lease: http://www.arboretum.harvard.edu/about/our-history/
999-year lease
999-year lease, which is the longest duration allowed under state law. The Arboretum is a city-owned park and part of the Emerald Necklace, but the property is managed by Harvard per the lease. The city owns the underlying land, which you can see if you look at the city assessing website. Harvard does own the Weld Hill parcel outright though, with the new-ish research lab building on it.
WRONG
Arboretum is patrolled by Boston park rangers, which are 400A special police officers (not that they ever use their powers of arrest :/ ) they arent affiliated with State rangers at all! Mass DCR a has state rangers, NPS has federal park rangers. Also the first two rangers orgs , each have their own unions, because they are so totally different LMAO
Perhaps
it's time to ban dogs from the arboretuem as a whole? A few bad apples will surely spoil the bunch. I'd like to see them banned. If you can't keep your dogs on the leash then no more dogs in the park. Simple. Don't like it? Oh well.
How about people just follow the law?
The Arboretum is not just a 'park'; it is a research facility that allows public and free access.
I noonger bring my dogs to the Arbs because of all the off leash dogs. One of mine gets aggressive and defensive when she is on leash and free roaming dogs come running up to us. She minds her own business when dogs on leash walk on by. I have seen similar situations with other leashed dogs as well.
And in this situation punishment is appropriate. The owner flagrantly broke the law. City and State law require dogs to be leashed at all times. The dog 'trespassed' when it jumped the protective barrier fence. Any time a dog bites any living being and breaks skin; the dog is subject to quarantine and possible euthanization. The dog attacked livestock - an offense that carries a death sentance more times than not. The dog 'damaged' a purchased service/product brought into the Arboretum. The dog caused financial loss to the vendor by having two goats removed from service. The dog caused financial loss to the vendor who needs to have her goats treated by a veterinarian. The only redemption for the owner was that he stayed at the scene..... He will be very lucky if the vendor does not come after him for punitive damages.
What?
This article is LITERALLY ABOUT WHY we can't have off-leash hours. The number of well behaved dogs is absolutely irrelevant if they come with some number of shithead dogs and their attendant owners. The minute I can walk down my street without watching for landmines I will donate $10 to your stupid cause. The sun will have imploded by the time Boston dog owners will collectively manage their animals properly.
Have you stopped driving or
Have you stopped driving or riding in cars because people go through red lights?
cool comparison bro, were
cool comparison bro, were talking about dogs not driving, nice deflection attempt though
well...
Have you stopped shitting on the sidewalk?
Not relevant to the conversation, I hear you saying?
Maybe?
Sounds like how they'd like people to not block the box at intersections but come on down to Forrest Hills any day to see just how well that works.
This is just a bog standard tragedy of the commons thing. 90% of dogs are fine with responsible owners. What to do about the other 10% and do the 90% have any right to expect special treatment based on their good intentions? I've been to the Peter's Hill part of the Arboretum with little kids for years and years without any problem. My big complaint is that there is no way that people are really picking up the crap from off leash dogs if they've run off into the fields to do their business.
S H I T
It happens - and doubtful it gets picked up by off leash owners.
The Arboretum is a tree museum
and thus not comparable to the NYC parks you cited.
Oh my god
You're right, it IS a tree museum. How did I never make that connection before? I've missed out on a lifetime of "charge all the people a dollar and a half just to see 'em" jokes!
How about you just follow the rules
And instead of trying to turn a more and more crowded park for all residents into a suburban style pet accommodation, move to the actual suburbs.
I love dogs. I would love to own a dog.
Unfortunately, the building I live in doesn't allow pets. Sure, I could abuse the law like more and more utterly obnoxious people are doing these days, and get someone to verify that I have an urgent and dire need for a service animal. But that would be a lie. Plus, my apartment would be too small for a dog anyway, and I live in the city where there wouldn't be ample area for the kind of dog I would like to roam free. So, for all those reasons, I don't own a dog. That's called being a grown-up and a good citizen.
So similarly, if you want to own a dog and you want to be able to exercise your dog off-leash, investigate your options FIRST. Find a place with a dog run that's close enough for you to get to. DON'T expect the rest of the world to bend to your convenience. DON'T ignore the rules and the laws unless you're willing to pay the fines and suffer the penalties if you should get caught. And for the love of Pete PLEASE don't play the service-dog card unless you have a REAL medical need.
By all means, advocate for the facilities you would like to see for your furry friend. But until you get a dog run next door, get a fish.
Thanks
Dad.
This is why...
...children aren't allowed to own pets.
If you ever grow up, you may get to own one some day.
Stepdad
Just some playful snottiness with my coffee this morning. And relax, I only took $3.25 from your change dish yesterday, I said I would pay you back...
For the record, I own 15 and 6 years-old pit bulls who love long (leashed!) walks around Turtle Pond and destroying my fenced-in backyard. Hope Scott is proud of me!
Dogs
WHO LET THE DOGS LOOSE? WHO?! WHO?! WHO!?
I'm fed up with random
I'm fed up with random wildlife being ripped up by cats. They stalk, hunt and kill on a much larger scale than dogs do. Can we do something about that too? Thanks.
Also
Coca Cola used to cost a nickel. A nickel! And young people used to show proper respect for their elders, not like these kids today with their loose pants and backwards baseball caps.
...I'm sorry, what were we talking about again?
Disrespectful pet owners and
Disrespectful pet owners and too many pets for the area. That's the topic.
Not a parallel case, but yes, "we" are
"We" (meaning not you) are doing something about cats that attack "random wildlife". If you want to help, you can find a program that works on spaying/neutering feral cats and donate your time/efforts/money to it. If, on the other hand, you just wanted to derail this thread, you're shit outta luck.
Okay
You would prefer that much of the "random wildlife" that cats kill breed uncontrollably and then move into your house with you?
Okay. Sounds good.
Note: cats don't attack goats or kill herons or run deer
Ban Dogs!
So simple.
So I need some Boston hipster etiquette understanding.
Is it okay to have an unleashed dog if you are riding a bike in the arboretum? If the dog poops on grass is that considered carbon neutral? Can a rescued pit bull plead insanity at trial? If I don't have a dog can I enter a dog park? Is the social structure of a dog park similar to that of a Jr high cafeteria? Do some dog owners lack empathy? Please advise?
Nothing to do with hipsters
Most of these asshats are mid-aged.
Are you suggesting that 40 something sipping Guinness
at Doyle's sporting skinny jeans and pro keds is not a hipster? These folks will remind you that the World was not created in 1985 and that their microbrew startup wasn't an innovation but genius.
Please queue behind the velvet rope
Generally speaking there is a one dog minimum to enter the Arboretum.
Bike in the arboretum
There's a (reasonable) rule about that, too: You can ride on the paved roads, not on the dirt trails or offroad.
I would humbly suggest some whopping fines.
Maybe $100 first time offense, $300 second, $1000 third if that were really necessary. It'd probably be enough of a deterrent to bring the number waaay down and hopefully change the culture/public perception that it's an ok thing to do.
Yes, if it can be done
I agree, if it can be done. It would probably not be a quick process to implement. I'd add to that:
- You need to produce ID. If you can't/wont, your dog is impounded. When you go to pick it up, you need to produce ID, and you'll be served with the fine plus dog storage charges.
- You need to produce a leash with which you will escort your dog off the property. If you can't/won't, your dog is impounded. When you go to pick it up, you'll be served with an even bigger fine plus dog storage charges.
- If you fail to claim your dog within a week, a more appropriate owner will be found.
While we're dreaming, let's dream big.
Legal change
Current penalties as stipulated in 16-1.9A are zero, 50, 60, 100. Changing the law would probably be harder than finding a way to use the law as currently written.
The current system of fining
The current system of fining dog owners is super retarded because the stupid off leash dog owner has to be verbally warned before a written citation can be given i.e you have to catch them a second time, change the stupid ordinance.