Why Dogs Should Never Be Leashed

From today’s Peterborough Examiner, Ontario, Canada, “Park helps spark natural instincts”:

[Canine trainer Karen] Laws invited the public to visit her fenced-in dog walking trail as part of Responsible Dog Ownership day, when dog owners across Canada gather to demonstrate the benefits of obedience training and responsible dog ownership. Letting dogs run free "allows dogs to learn how to be dogs again" said Laws. Being on a leash is restricting and can stress dogs to the point that they lash out, Laws said. By letting them run around and interact with other dogs while their owners are present, the dogs' natural "pack instinct" takes over and dogs become calmer because they instinctively follow their owners' leads instead of being forced on a leash.

Read the whole thing here,

Notes our correspondent:

The Orwellian doublespeak of the off leash dog crazies would now have us believe that off leash = dog obedience training, and responsible dog ownership = not "forcing" dogs to walk on a leash. The asinine anthropomorphism of off leash proponents gets nuttier every day. New Age animal rights imbecility meets human pop-psychobabble with this quote: "Being on a leash is restricting and can stress dogs to the point that they lash out." You gotta be kidding me. Dog fighting sparks natural instincts, too.

* * * * *
Yesterday, in a circuit around the perimeter drives in Prospect Park beginning around 6:45 A.M., we observed 51 pedestrians and two dog owners. One of the dog owners had two leashed dogs and the other was unleashing a dog on Long Meadow. We saw no other dogs on Long Meadow. 17 pedestrians and both dog owners were white.

* * * *
At 3 P.M. today a black dog was cavorting around the Nethermead accompanied by 2 white males. About 10 minutes later, a large brown dog crossed the Lullwater bridge followed at a respectful distance by his white owner, with no leash in sight.

Missing Dog, Off-Leash of Course

Yesterday, we found a sopping wet 'Missing Dog' sign taped up to the fence at Prospect Park on Ocean Avenue, Brooklyn, an area abutting the neighbourhood of Lefferts Gardens. It speaks volumes about the off leash nonsense in Prospect Park.

We have long suspected that most of the dramas behind the 'Missing Dog' signs originate with a dog running off leash, or a dog that is poorly trained to recall getting off the leash accidentally. This sign is unusual in that it details the specific events that caused the dog to run away. The message reads:

MISSING DOG Friday September 12 2008.

Dog is about 2 years of age.
25-30 lbs with semi-German Shepherd markings.
He is brown and black, very skinny.
He is somewhat skiddish [sic], shy, and very sweet.
He was last seen in Lefferts Gardens, Brooklyn, in the the afternoon ( 5-6PM)
in the park where he was off the leash. Some kids started chasing after him
and he got scared and ran away from the owner's friend. PLEASE HELP!!!!!!

This is a tragedy that need not have happened and was wholly preventable. The owners/friend are so full of failure, we don't know where to begin. First off, the biggest failure is that the dog was "in the park where he was off the leash". It's pretty hard for a dog that is on a leash to run away.

Second, the owner's friend erred in letting a dog that was "somewhat skiddish [sic], [and] shy" run off-leash. A skittish dog is presumably unreliable and easily frightened. Why someone who was only barely acquainted with the dog would think it was a good idea to let the animal loose in a crowded urban park is beyond me. We'll give the "friend" the benefit of the doubt and assume he/she was following the usual practice of the owners in letting the dog run off-leash in the park. [Off-leash rules also explicitly require the dog to be under the owner's control. But maybe these rules don't apply since the dog was off-leash illegally; see next paragraph.]

Best of all, the dog was illegally off -leash outside of official off leash hours. "He was last seen in Lefferts Gardens, Brooklyn in the afternoon [5-6 pm] in the park where he was off the leash. "

The kids are being blamed for chasing the dog and scaring it away, but the person who unclipped the leash bears sole responsibility for what happened. We wouldn't want to be in owner's friend's shoes right now.

* * * *
And see this post at http://gothamist.com/2008/09/27/dogs_1.php. It looks to us like, well, dogs acting like dogs. But this sort of behavior--precisely the same sort as we encountered on Friday and several times previously around the Peninsula--is Exhibit A for the folly of unfenced dog runs in city parks.

Off-Leash Hours and Dirty Bookstores Redux; Encounter at Peninsula

The previous post generated an exchange of comments between Surreal947 and Datnioides. We shall close--end--this exchange with the following two comments. But first, a brief editorial remark. We do not view with favor Surreal's suggestion that our regular counts of illegally unleashed dogs are other than truthful. And while there is no way we can think of to determine if the "majority" of offleash dog owners are scofflaws, in suggesting that they are a small minority, Surreal is talking out of her hat. She might tear herself away from her computer some day and visit Prospect Park when and where we do.

First, Surreal's latest reply:

Your snarky commentary on books by dog lovers says much about you and your values. One need not agree with them in order to respect their genuine affection for their pets. That said, I disagree with you regarding majority/minority. You cite examples but for every one, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of law abiding citizens.I see litterbugs, speeders, smokers, and others who violate laws daily. As much as they annoy me, I do not ascribe their behavior to the majority.

You have made your anti off-leash sentiments known for some time. In looking back at CREDO posts here, I have seen your arguments. They boil down to the fact that YOU do not like off-leash. I can respect your views while disagreeing. You are free to keep your dogs leashed at all times. Many do. That is their choice. I guess this makes me pro-choice.

Others are free to choose off-leash during legal times and in legal places. Now, if you want to argue for enforcement during other times, I am with you (though I do support extending off-leash times in the Nethermead). We can agree to enforcement of all rules against bikers off paths and on sidewalks, picnickers who litter, against "Marcia" (who abuses people, animals, and plants), etc.

You are free to walk your dogs on leash away from those off leash. Personally, I dislike baseball so I avoid the fields. I do like the enjoyment it brings others. I am not a bird watcher, but I watch birds and admire their magnificence while knowing little about them scientifically.

I am not a biker, but am in awe of many while I could scream at those on sidewalks.You think my argument used straw men, but it was merely a response to yours. I do not say you want censorship, but I do suggest you censor yourself by not reading those books that annoy you so. Indifference is a powerful emotion too few utilize.

Ironically, in none of your posts, you have never expressed any affection for your dogs. I am not saying you do not like them, but you have never expressed this. Perhaps that is why certain authors who do express themselves annoy you so. (Just a hypothosis for future discussion.)

I do have a suggestion- CREDO and you might make a legitimate count of dogs on and off leash during non-off leash times. Be truthful and accurate.. walk everywhere and look everywhere. Then let's discuss it. I would be interested in your results.

To which Datnioides replied:

That's a good question. What do my snarky comments on books by dog lovers say about my values?

Since you, Surreal, know nothing about me or my lifelong experience and study of animals, I can't imagine why you would assess my values based on the simple fact that I don't care for sentimental dog books. That's just ridiculous. I mean, look around Barnes and Noble the next time you go in (just be careful to avoid the minefields of dog doo) Every author worth his/her bones is turning out slight, easy-to-read books about their favourite dogs. Canines are boffo box office. People are writing these books to make money, because these light, trifling, silly dog books are selling big time. They don't demand much of a reader. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I find this whole dog-veneration thing vastly amusing.

Why on earth would I respect someone's "genuine affection for their pets"? More often than not, I have seen excessive "dog love" turn people's brains into mush. I honestly don't know what it is about dogs that makes people throw common sense to the wind and over-identify with their pets to the point of absurdity. I'd really like to know what is going on here. In more sensible times, people said "Love me, love my dog." Now they say, "Love my dog, or get stuffed."

Dog love does not necessarily make one morally superior. The neurotic craving for the adoration of a living creature, genetically programmed to behave submissively and read behavioural cues in order to flatter and get what they want from humans, is not an admirable trait. I'll admit that dogs are appealing creatures. I have been around them all my life. I truly enjoyed training my pit bull to be a good canine citizen and the months of training made me a better person, because I learned how to be fair and truthful in my reciprocal dealings with a loyal fellow animal. I succeeded, not because I sentimentalized my animal and imposed my anthropomorphic fantasies on it, but because I appreciated and respected it for what it was, a dog. The relationship between dog and human will always be a little mysterious and that's what makes it so fascinating to me.

I am not one of those people who goes on and on about ooohh I love my dog, love, love, love this and that, blah blah blah. Too bad if the "Dog Lovers" find me cold and heartless because of this. Personally, I like people who work with dogs and teach them important jobs. I like dogs that are more than four legged emotional supports. I like dogs that can do things. My dog was trained by me to do circus tricks like jump through a hoop, dance in a circle, etc. Only a tiny minority of dog owners are willing to expend the effort to properly train them, and that's a shame.

Owning a dog is an honour to live up to. I honour my dog by keeping it safe and never allowing it to become a nuisance to other people. A well-trained dog is a boon companion and a protector. I don't need to bore the world by endlessly going on about how much I love my dog. I allow my balanced, happy, healthy dog to bespeak my love for it.

I'd love to post a picture of my dog but it is so distinctive and beautiful and well known and liked in my neighbourhood that it would be instantly recognized by many people, including the "Dog Lovers".

Discussion concluded.

* * * *
This past Friday afternoon at 4 P.M., a pedestrian was walking past the Peninsula towards the west drive when he heard a dog barking. A small, wiry dog was headed towards him, barking and snarling (the dog's tail was not wagging) as he heard an owner calling "come back". The pedestrian turned around, the dog stopped in its tracks about 20 feet from the walk, and the pedestrian proceeded. But at the same time a young female jogger passed the pedestrian going the other way, and the dog advanced to the edge of the walk, barking and snarling. The jogger stopped and hesitated about 10 feet away. The pedestrian turned around to join the jogger, threw his bag down between them and the dog, took out his pepper spray, and yelled to the owner to come leash her dog or he was going to use it. The jogger confided to the pedestrian that she was afraid of dogs. The dog stopped barking. Only at that point did the owner, a young white female, come forward to leash her dog. The jogger then left.

The owner--uncharacteristically--apologized profusely to the pedestrian (as in "I'm so sorry") and acknowledged that she knew about dog hours, but did not explain why she thought it was ok to let her dog run loose then.

Incidentally, in a 90-minutes walk on Friday afternoon in a drizzly Prospect Park, we encountered a total of two dogs, this one and one other leashed.

Off-Leash Hours and Dirty Bookstores

An interview with independent filmmaker and self-described dog lover Kelly Reichardt in TimeOut New York:

What’s the future of New York? What are your hopes, and what needs to happen?
Kelly Reichardt: I suppose the future of New York is that it continues to become this amusement park. We need to get the peep shows and dirty bookstores back on 42nd Street so that people will go visit Disney in Florida and California. We need more mo’-better rent protection, fewer NYU dorms and more off-leash hours.

They go well together. And while, as our good friend and faithful correspondent Surreal points out, the juxtaposition might seem "wacky", it is no more "extreme" (to use Surreal's language) than the notion of off-leash in heavily-used municipal parks, or any parks with wildlife. Indeed, the juxtaposition confirms an important point about the fundamental nature of off-leash: like dirty bookstores and peep shows, it is entertainment for dog owners, and nothing more.

* * * *
Tuesday, around 4 P.M., a couple of unleashed dogs in the Central Park ramble. Yesterday around 5:30 P.M., a couple of unleashed dogs at Plum Beach. As usual, all owners were white.

Pit Bulls and Governor Palin

We usually stay away from politics on this blog, but couldn’t help noticing the following in the online Alaska Report:

When Sarah Palin joked about herself and her fellow hockey moms as pit bulls with lipstick, she may have revealed more than she intended. She made it sound a compliment—portraying herself and her peers as ordinary mothers who look good but are tough, tenacious, and defend their family at any cost. But do we really want a potential President whose prime trait is an eagerness to go for your throat at any pretext? We already have that: Dick Cheney.

Read the rest of it here. Consistent with our observation that the problem is not pit bulls but unleashed pit bulls, perhaps Governor Palin needs to be leashed. Or, perhaps, she should be turned loose in Prospect Park or Central Park during off-leash hours for a fight-to-the-death with the liberal dog owners.

* * * *
This morning at 6:55, two small unleashed were around the south side of the lake. An hour later, there were two large unleashed dogs at, respectively, Terrace Bridge and Binen Bridge.

On the way, as usual we heard lots of yapping on the Peninsula and the Nethermead. At the Nethermead, it sounded like an owner was trying to break up a dog fight. You’ll occasionally hear vacuous nonsense from supposed “animal behaviorists” that only unhappy dogs bark, and since off-leash dogs are happy, they don’t bark. They do. One revealing posting on the New York Times blog a couple of weeks ago, by an anti-leash partisan, asserted that according to the DOPR dog walkers are the second largest group of park users—next to recreational walkers. Said another way, the DOPR admits that more people come to the park to take a walk without dogs than with them. So our question is: why must it be that every single morning of the year, walkers who come to the park for some quiet time must instead be subjected to the sound of yapping dogs?

Plum Beach; Another Pit Bull Attack

Yesterday morning at Plum Beach in Brooklyn, we saw two loose dogs more or less accompanied by their owners. Here they are.

Attack in New Jersey by a pit bull, apparently unleashed because the owner “heard the attack” and intervened. Read all about it. As reported here ,the dog was then stolen from the shelter to which the police had taken it, but the dog was recovered and the thief, apparently a friend of the owner, was arrested.

* * * *

In response to the pit bull post, our good friend and faithful commenter Surreal947 complains that she "still" doesn't understand what point we're making. The point is that in public, including in the parks, dogs should be leashed; and one reason is that--as exemplified in this post--when dogs are not leashed in the presence of strangers, by design or accident, bad things can, and often do, happen. It is almost impossible for them to happen if the dogs are leashed. That they are not reported to happen more often under the DOPR's lunatic off-leash rules is attributable to, we suspect, underreporting and the flight of most other people from dog areas of the parks during these hours.

Surreal continues "What does this one person have to do with the majority of dog owners who are good owners and neighbors?" We don't know that that statement is true; all too many dog owners, in our experience, are aggressive scofflaws. But even if it's true, it's irrelevant. Some dogs cannot be trusted near strangers, and it should not be up to the rest of us to figure out which dogs they are.

Surreal also would like us to print a shaggy dog story reported the other day about a dog who dialed 911. The story does show that dogs can make great pets. But once again, it's irrelevant. That they're great pets should not give their owners license to impose them on the rest of us.

Marcia Returns; Tales of Loose Pit Bulls; Dog Beach; Unleashed in Alabama

A friend called this morning and reported that Marcia and her two unleashed dogs had been in the Rose Garden of Prospect Park.

This afternoon, on the Nethermead Meadow, there was a white couple tossing a large branch for their unleashed pit bull. A short time later we walked past the "Dog Beach" where there were three unleashed dogs in the water. Just up the path from the beach, a woman was tossing a ball for her unleashed dog onto the baseball fields. She walked away when she saw us taking photographs.

* * *

From today’s Newsday:

A pit bull on the loose bit two people in Farmingdale yesterday morning before Nassau police chased the dog down and shot it - twice with tranquilizer darts and once with a gun, police said.

The black-and-white dog, wearing a collar and broken leash, died on the way to the animal hospital, authorities said.

Read it all here. The dog was not wearing identification and so far nobody has admitted owning the dog.

Also, this past Monday's New York Post reports that the lawyer for the owner of a dog bitten to death by a pit bull has obtained records showing that the pit bull was released ten days after the attack.

"The Health Department investigated this dog-bite incident when it occurred," said a spokeswoman. "Based on that review, the dog was released on the condition that it wear a muzzle in public. We are not aware of any other incidents with this dog since that time."

Back on January 20, we blogged that the owner of a dog attacked by another dog in New York City—although not elsewhere in New York State—has limited recourse. This story confirms it.

* * *

At about 11:15 this morning, four human babies were observed playing in the water at the dog beach. If in fact the resident rats leave bacteria in the water that's dangerous to dogs, isn't it dangerous to children also? And if so, why isn't there a sign? Or is the DOPR now concerned only about dogs?

* * *

One of the comments in the inane NY Times blog we reported yesterday claimed that communities all over the country are unleashing their dogs, implying that this was a Good Thing. So we bring you the following report from yesterday’s Dadeville, Alabama Record:

Charles White just wants to find a solution two months after his teacup Chihuahua, Lacy, was found dead, a victim, according to White, of an attack by a larger dog.

White asked the Tallapoosa County Commission to adopt a law, already part of the Alabama code, which would force a dog owner to be in control of their pet when off of their private property.

“We have too many dogs running around neighborhoods in the county,” said White. “I am fed up with all the loose dogs. Dogs run up and down the road here all the time and it gets old.”

Read the whole thing here.

All the News That Fits

Last week, the New York Times helped author Frances Sheridan promote her new book by letting her answer questions in the Times’ blog. The final round of questions and answers is here. One of the questions is by our friend Datnioides, writing (fancifully) through her dog, Pashelle:

Frances, do you have any empathy whatsoever for people who are nervous around off-leash dogs or afraid of dogs? I’ve had to give up using Prospect Park since it became overrun by off-leash dogs. Encountering the off leash dogs and the owners who seem to feel that the park belongs to them and no one else just became too stressful for me. I don’t trust off leash dogs bounding up to me, I don’t know strange dogs or their owners. Can you give me one good reason why I should have to endure interaction with off leash dogs as a condition of enjoying the park?

I have a very well-trained large breed dog. My dog has never been allowed off leash and never will be. Yet she is living proof that a dog can be happy and well adjusted without off leash time. Guess what, I used to hand walk my dog for miles in Prospect Park, a block from my home, before the prevalence of off leash scofflaws became too much to take. Thanks to the selfishness of the Prospect Park dog contingent and their acolytes, both myself and my dog have been deprived of a beautiful place to exercise.

I’d move, but in my travels I have discovered that indulging the “demands” of dog owners who want off leash space for privately owned animals to be provided by the government has impacted parks and open spaces across the country. There’s more empathy for dogs than people, it seems. If you dare to raise your voice against the emotional appeal of Fluffy Running Free, then you’re an evil dog hater. Yet I have a lovely dog who is universally praised by all who meet her for her sweet temperament and vibrant physical health, despite 10 years of life without “doggie socialization” or off-leash time. How would you respond to this?

There followed this semi-literate comment (which we can no longer find on the Times’ website; typos and grammatical errors in the original):

When answer Pashelle and the diatribe against off leash in Prospect Park, could you please explain the off leash rules in New York City?

Of the 88+ parks with off leash rights,dogs are allowed off-leash under the following rules:
1. Dog must be under visually and verbally under control of owner.
2. Hours are limited to 9 am - 9 pm when the parks are least used.
3. Off leash areas EXCLUDE all playgrounds, ballfields, nature preserves, flowerbeds, tennis courts, etc. In fact, off-leash areas are very limited.
4. Dogs must be licensed and vaccinated. (Note that the City now allows licensing on-line to speed up a process that often took months by snail mail.)
5. Dog owners are 100% responsible for their dogs and actions by their dogs.
It seems to me that Pachelle has a strong bias against off leash. That is fine, but isn’t the question -as worded- biased to make it appear that dogs are running wild all over parks?

Prospect Park is one of the most dog friendly parks in the nation. It is surrounded by diverse communities. There are thousands of dogs and owners that use the park daily.

Sure there are those who violate rules and they should be fined. When I am in the park with my dogs, I am always mindful of those who might be afraid or uncomfortable around dogs. We do not impose ourselves on others, but are always ready to introduce ourselves when parents ask if their children can say hello to my dogs.

Pashelle can walk through most of Prospect all the time, and can avoid the off-leash areas when it is off leash time. One would not walk dogs through a ballgame in progress, so think of the off-leash areas the same way.

Of course, some dogs should not be allowed off leash. No one disputes that. Frances, you have written wisely and obviously love dogs. Can you please explain to all readers the value of dog-dog, dog-human socialization?

Here, in part, is Ms. Sheridan’s response:

Pashelle, I do have a great deal of empathy for those who are nervous around or afraid of dogs. I am sorry you have had unpleasant experiences in your park. The rules must be followed regarding the unleashed hours and you should alert the parks police if you are finding them broken. The few who break the rules should be fined and not be allowed to ruin an entire program for everyone. The great majority of dog owners are sensitive to other people and do not want their dogs to make them uncomfortable. This need not be a black-and-white issue where you love or hate dogs simply because you want the rights of all park users respected. \

Also, reiterating what [the commenter] posted, the rules show that there are specific areas and times for unleashed activity. You are by no means being forced to endure any interaction with off leash dogs.

[Italics are ours.]

And here’s a portion of one reader’s response to Ms. Sheridan’s platitudes: “The few who break the rules should be fined and not be allowed to ruin an entire program for everyone.”

Yes, they should. But how do you identify them and fine them when both the dog and the owner run away after breaking a pedestrian’s knee or causing a cyclist to crash, trashing the bike and breaking a collarbone?

You can’t, period. For you to suggest so is unrealistic at best, possibly hypocritical. It’s “love me, love my dog,”

The brief answer to Ms. Sheridan and the person who replied to Datnioides is: the rules exist on paper only. It’s not just a few people who are breaking them. If Ms. Sheridan or the commenter believe that it’s just a few—and we don’t think they really do—we have a bridge to sell them. As we showed in a previous posting, the City’s own figures demonstrate that the vast majority of off-leash dogs are not licensed, and who knows how many are vaccinated, because any PEP agents who patrol off-leash areas never ask. As we keep posting, dog owners—not just a few—routinely let their dogs loose when and where they’re not supposed to, and—as we shall document in a few days with the City’s own figures—for the most part, nobody tries to stop them. We see them whenever we’re in a park. Some recent, random examples that we haven’t mentioned before:

1. Above are pictures taken at Oakland Lake in Bayside, Queens on Sept. 1 around 5 P.M..

2. This past Monday afternoon, in Central Park’s Ramble, some woman was using on the grassy areas as an unenclosed dog run.

3. This morning in Central Park around 7:25, we saw a guy help his large dog jump into a fenced-in area near the bandshell. The area is fenced in—nobody may enter it—to permit the grass to grow. The dog proceeded to tear around the area, using it as his own private enclosed dog run.

4. This morning around 8, we saw a large unleashed dog running around the Ramble.

5. Around 10, we saw a large unleashed dog entering Central Park around 79th Street. It seems to us that we’ve seen the dog (and owner) in the same place before, unleashed.

And, as we keep pointing out, while it is true that the neighborhoods around Prospect Park are ethnically diverse, the off-leash community is almost exclusively white.

More About the Dog Beach

From a correspondent:

Above are photos of a new sign that has been installed in a few locations around Prospect Park. This one is adjacent to the "Dog Beach". There is only one problem; read the rules closely, then look at the sign posted only about 6' away (and behind the park bench). It contradicts both the new sign by allowing 5pm offleash and the amended health code times.

Anyone who frequents Prospect Park knows that the leash rules are rarely enforced anywhere, but never enforced at the "Dog Beach". This summer I approached Officer D. Scott of the Parks Enforcement Patrols to tell her that several dogs were running around, unleashed, in that area. I was told that they usually stay away from the dog beach to avoid confrontation with dog owners. Unleashed dogs can be found at any time of day running from the water and on to the surrounding fields. Dogs that run around on the hillside beneath the stand of elm trees northwest of the beach have completely denuded it of undergrowth. In addition, a satellite image from Google Earth clearly shows the same kind of damage caused by the dogs to the edge of the field just southwest of the "Dog Beach". Finally, I was there today at noon and the garbage can next to the beach reeked so badly of dog waste that I could smell it from several yards away. No surprise that there are rats hanging around that area. Olmstead and Vaux are turning over in their graves.

So PEP agents "usually stay away from the dog beach to avoid confrontation with dog owners". Indeed. That's like saying a pass receiver usually heads straight out of bounds as soon as the football is snapped to avoid confrontation with tacklers. Or the leadoff hitter usually takes three called strikes to avoid confrontation with the pitcher. Isn't "confrontation with dog owners" one of things these people are paid to do?

Update: In a comment subsequent to those published below, which we chose not to publish because (among other reasons) we had closed the discussion, Surreal writes "You obviously do not understand the dynamics of baseball. Infielders play primarily around the bases or baselines. Outfielders cover large expanses of grass in sweeping arcs." Of course infielders do; that--and the fact that this is where baserunners are-- is a reason those areas are dirt. But, as we said, infielders go onto the relatively small grassy area to field slow grounders or bunts, and the pitcher runs over to first base to cover it. By the same token, baserunners do not go into the outfield, and the outfield areas are sufficiently large that any one place has relatively little use. The overall impact of fielders on any one area of the smaller, but relatively infrequently trampled, infield grassy area and the far larger, but more frequently trampled outfield areas ought to be roughly the same.

Assault and Battery in Prospect Park II--Tupper Reponds

Mr. Jett,

I assume that you did report this attach to the Police because they are already familiar with her and her conduct. She has been ticketed but this is beyond our PEP and this is now a Police issue. I am forwarding your letter to the police as well but this is a very bad thing and she has overstepped all boundaries. You also have witnesses which is very different from the last attach which did not. I assume you are available to talk with the police. I am very sorry that this happened but glad you have reported it so we can perhaps finally have her behavior stop.

Tupper

Tupper Thomas
Administrator/President
Prospect Park
95 Prospect Park West
Brooklyn, NY. 11215
718.965.8951
Please note new email: tthomas@prospectpark.org

Ms. Thomas has no credibility. At the "last attack"--more anon--there were witnesses, if not to the actual incident, then to the aftermath. It's just that the police chose to ignore this, and, like Ms. Thomas, did nothing. Also, nothing we know, not just her persistence in running her dogs in the park and her conduct yesterday, makes us believe that she's ever gotten a ticket for her park activities, or if she has, that she's ever paid one. In addition, the tone of the letter--"this time, we'll do something", is consistent with her response in the past.

In April, 2007, we first sent Tupper a letter which said, in part:

At your invitation, last week I called Philippe Pereira, intending to report an encounter with a pair of off-leash terriers scampering through the underbrush in the Midwood. We have encountered these off-leash dogs and their owner many other times in the park’s wooded areas, including the Peninsula Woods and the Breeze Hill feeders. Attached are photographs; the picture of the dogs was taken over the winter. This time, the owner took exception at our photographing her and delivered what we took to be a threat. But Mr. Pereira did not return my call. We intend to keep photographing this woman and her unleashed dogs and would hate for this to turn into a police matter. We would hope that you will deal with this some other way.

On May 2, 2007, we wrote the following to Alessandro G. Olivieri, DOPR general counsel:

My letter to Ms. Thomas also refers to a woman with two terriers (pictures attached) who routinely flouts the off-leash restrictions. Today, my wife and I encountered this person again. This time, her terriers were behind the fence enclosing Lily Pond. When she saw my wife and her camera, she began to yell at the dogs, who promptly exited, one of whom was carrying something feathered or furry in its mouth. She leashed the dogs and the three then headed quickly towards the Midwood. These dogs do not carry toys; that object was a hunting trophy. This scofflaw is a menace to Prospect Park, and if Ms. Thomas declines to do something about her, you should.

In June, 2007, in an email response to a complaint about the attack, Ms. Thomas said:

I am surprised that you do not believe that we took you seriously. In fact PEP was asked to speak to her because you were not the only compliant [sic]. They spoke to her several times and warned her but could never catch her disobeying the rules. We worked with FIDO who also spoke to her at length. Apparently she walks there often and has also been stopped by my staff and asked to leash her dogs. . . . . Now that she is identified and the police know all about her, it will be easier for us to stop her from disobeying the rules.

And, also immediately following the attack, in a telephone call made at Commissioner Benepe's request, Mr. Olivieri assured us that procedures were being put in place to catch this woman, give her summonses, multiple if necessary, etc. Quite obviously, nothing like that was ever done.

Since then, we've heard that numerous times, lower-level DOPR employees have complained about her conduct, including vandalizing park property and threatening park workers, to the PEP and the police--and that they've been complaining since long before we started. And what we've heard is that the police and PEP have "spoken" to her, not ticketed her. The excuse has been "we didn't see her do these things so we can't give her a ticket."

But as we pointed out to Ms. Thomas last June, quite aside from last June's attack, vandalizing park property-tearing down fences, unleashing her dogs on park wildlife--and threatening park workers are crimes for which she could have been arrested without the cops themselves seeing her doing these things. Also, for the last several months--perhaps as much as a year--she has been routinely and openly carrying a weapon, a long stick with a sharpened metal spike at the end, through Prospect Park. Who exactly has been protecting her, and why? Why weren't these "procedures" to catch Marcia and deal with her once and for all carried out? One would think that the cops would have dealt with her long ago had Ms. Thomas not instructed them otherwise.

In short, Ms. Thomas has known about Marcia and her depredations for at least a year and a half and has chosen to do nothing despite assurances that Marcia would be dealt with. Her assurances now that this time is somehow different ring hollow.

Assault and Battery in Prospect Park

Sunday, September 7, 2008 6:59 PM
From: "Rob Jett"
To: "Tupper Thomas"
Cc: "Adrian Benepe" adrian.benepe@parks.nyc.gov

Ms. Thomas,

I am writing to you with the hope that you can help resolve a serious problem.

This morning I was leading a nature trip in Prospect Park for the Linnaean Society of New York. We had stopped for a moment near the bridle path at Rick's Place at approximately 9:15am. While I was pointing out some birds to a group of 5 individuals the animals flushed when a Jack Russell terrier ran through the wooded area at that location. The owner of the dog, as well as her second unleashed dog, had just emerged from the stairway that ascends from the Midwood. I said nothing, but took out my camera and snapped a photograph.

The woman's name is Marcia Scarnato:

140 Eighth Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11215-1767
(718) 399-7818

She proceeded to threaten and harass myself and others in my group for "taking her photograph". I am currently recuperating from a fractured collar bone and my right arm is restricted to a sling. Ms. Scarnato carries a walking stick with a sharpened steel spike attached to one end. She used the handle end to poke me in my injured shoulder and threatened to assault me if I didn't give her my camera. At that point two people in our group called 911. I stated, very loudly, that I didn't have any interest in a physical altercation, but if she assaulted me I would have no choice but to aggressively defend myself. She backed off, only to go after a smaller woman in the group demanding that she hand over her cellphone, claiming that she had taken her picture. Myself and one other person stood in the way to prevent her from assaulting that woman. Ms. Scarnato repeatedly claimed to have family in the police department which, presumably, gave her immunity from prosecution for her illegal actions.

I am contacting you directly because I am aware that you have been informed of this woman's disturbing behavior on several occasions. She has assaulted, at least, one person in Prospect Park in the last year. Other abuses include lifting her dogs over fences erected by the the grounds crews to allow the animals to attack park wildlife. She is a general nuisance to park patrons and park workers. I have reliable information that she uses the sharpened steel point on her stick to kill rabbits brought to her by her perpetually unleashed dogs.

As the administrator of Prospect Park, I think that it is well within your authority to see that this woman's activities are brought under control. According to the report by "New Yorkers for Parks" entitled "Tracking Crime in New York City Parks":

"...40 violent crimes were reported in Prospect Park over the 18 months, closely followed by 39 in Flushing Meadows. However, the rate of violent crimes relative to the total crimes in these parks shows an important difference in the two sites. While 39% of Flushing Meadows’ crimes were violent, 70% of the crimes reported in Prospect Park were violent."

This woman is a menace, contributes to the crime statistics and needs to be stopped before someone is seriously injured or killed. Below is a photograph of her taken at Rick's Place this morning. I have 5 witnesses that will corroborate my recounting of the incident that occurred at 9:15am and, in the event she makes any claim that I assaulted her, I have also attached a photograph of my fractured collar bone. As you can see, it would have been impossible for me to do much of anything with my right arm, let alone attack her.

I look forward to hearing from you and your prompt resolution to this untenable situation in Prospect Park.

Regards,

Rob Jett

Marcia also threatened bodily harm if her picture was posted on the web. She also claimed that she was being "assaulted" by having her picture taken. In a future post we will talk about her prior threats, an assault she carried out, and the reaction of Messrs. Thomas and Benepe--and the police--to these prior threats and assault.

* * * * *
6:35 P.M. today. 8 unleashed dogs on the portion of the Nethermead near Center Drive. Last Friday around 3:45 P.M., 2 unleashed dogs on Long Meadow and one at the dog beach.

Off-Leash Scofflaws in Prospect Park--Another View

Every time I visit Prospect Park I am guaranteed to run into an off leash dog in an area or at a time where it isn't supposed to be -- usually within five minutes of entering the park at Grand Army Plaza. As far as I'm concerned the park is lawless and the unleashed dogs are everywhere I look. Just the other day around 7pm I had to yell at some kids near Grove Hill who were about to loose two huge pit bulls on the world! In fact, this encounter happened on the very same day the Staten Island victim of an attack by two loose pit bulls died from his injuries. I yelled this at the dumb kids and said I wasn't interested in lawsuits or vet bills, which is why I always keep my pit bull, who was with me, on a leash. The teens kept their dogs leashed until I had walked past them with my dog, but they let their dogs loose onto the Long Meadow as soon as I had gone down the path.

If the proponents of off leash activity would just admit to the prevalence of rule breakers, that give the impression that there are no rules in Prospect Park, then perhaps something could be done to address the problem. The fact that the FIDO folks are not happy with winning 12 hrs per day and huge swathes of territory for their intrusive activities, and are yet begging for even more concessions (afternoon Nethermead privileges) from their indulgent parents, Tupper and Adrian, does not speak well of their seriousness about respecting the rules that are currently in place. It appears that FIDO will not likely rest until they get the entire park designated as an off leash area 24/7, and DOPR is apparently behind them 100%.

Off leash dogs should be placed within a fenced area out of respect for other park users, and the whole activity better organized so that NO dog would be allowed off leash without showing proof of license and vaccination, and passing a real world voice recall obedience test with distractions in place. Perhaps the beneficiaries of the off leash policy could set up boundary fences and charge membership fees to sponsor the daily activity of erecting and dismantling the fences. Dogs could be identified with permit and training tags, similar to the Boulder Colorado system (which even now is hotly debated and despised by non dog owners dealing with scofflaw dog owners while trying to hike, bike etc in Boulder's open space areas). Any dog owner discovered running his dog off leash OUTSIDE the fenced areas would be subject to ticketing and fines. As things stand now the rules are unenforceable by the current PEP manpower levels and everyone else using the park is forced to deal with the consequences.

- Datnioides, owner of Pashelle, the pit bull.

Off-Leash and Rat Poison, Part II

An email sent yesterday to Glenn Phillips, executive director of New York City Audubon, with a copy to a Daily News reporter:

I am writing you to ask your assistance with a very serious, time sensitive issue. According to a recent article in a local newspaper, the Department of Parks & Recreation is either planning to use or already using rat poison in Prospect Park:

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/31/34/31_34_ml_dogs.html

I'm sure you are aware that there have been instances in the past when poisoned rats inadvertantly killed Red-tailed Hawks in Central Park. I was under the impression that the DoPR had changed their policy towards the use of rodenticides. If the article is correct, then there is the very real danger that the "Hawk Migration Celebration" in Prospect Park will become a raptor funeral. The area in question is along the north-south stretch of woods that is frequented by the local hawk family. It is also about 250 yards from the nest they've used for 6 years and about 600 yards from the nature center.

The New York City Audubon Society has a history of working with the NYC Department of Parks & Recreation to resolve various conservation issues. It is extremely important that something be done quickly to assure that the resident Red-tailed Hawks, as well as, the many others that have begun migrating through the city parks are protected from poison-laced prey.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter,

Rob

Again, the most appalling thing about this episode is not that the DOPR is putting down rat poison in an area frequented by migrating hawks. That is appalling enough, but absent more it could be attributed to the bureaucratic incompetence and stupidity that seem to pervade the DOPR’s upper ranks, here a mistaken belief that these rats somehow present a pressing public health problem. But that’s not why they’re doing it. The most appalling thing is that the DOPR is putting down rat poison so that a few dogs and their owners can have a good time, and the consequences be damned.

UPDATE: from a correspondent:

I believe it is illegal under state law to place any rodenticide near water. Usually restrictions say that poison must be at placed least 50 feet away from water lines. The Dept, of Parks should know this since they are the ones up to their heads in beauracratic regulations. I hope they are not bending over backwards to appease their friends at FIDO. Besides, how DO THEY know it's rats spreading germs? Could one or more other dogs be carriers of disease ? Stop blaming other things.

The correspondent is right on: as we blogged on June 5, a sign at the Binghamton University nature preserve says that domestic dogs may not bathe in the lake because “dogs’ feces add bacteria and parasites to the water that local wildlife drinks.”

More Off-Leash Encroachment

The common theme in today’s post is attempts or apparent attempts to expand the off-leash policy.

1. This week, in the online version of the New York Times, author Frances R. Sheridan is answering City Room readers’ questions about New York’s dogs and dog runs. Here’s a question from “Tony”, presumably the president of FIDO which, having incrementally grabbed all of Park’s open spaces before 9 A.M. wants still more:

Prospect Park is a designated off-leash park. The hours in the evening for off-leash is [sic] 9 PM to 1AM. It is too dark, and scary at that time for people and their dogs. Can we get a dog run for these people, without losing off-leash? FIDO In Prospect Park has been very good for the park. We police our selves, and leave the park cleaner after we leave it. We donate garbage pails for the park, fill up potholes, organize clean ups. People from all over come here to use the park. Recently a State Senator came to one of our events, and was moved by the diversity of the dogwalkers, people of color, different ethnic groups and classes all getting along with their dogs. The Senator is having part of his Diversity Day among the dog walkers of Prospect Park. WE do so much, is a dog run too much to ask?

The answers to the first set of questions are here. One of them, in response to someone else’s question, notes that DOPR general policy is not to have dog runs in parks with off-leash hours, but “this has not been an across-the-board rule, and policies do change.” And we will guess that the senator’s comment about “Diversity Day among the dog walkers,” if indeed he said that, was intended to be facetious.

2. And here is a second set of answers, in which Ms. Sheridan advises a dog owner who wants extended dog hours at the Nethermead. She also prints, but pretty much avoids answering, a question by someone troubled by illegally off-leash dogs in Riverside Park.

3. According to minutes of a May 21, 2008 meeting, Community Board 6 in Red Hook 9-0 to bring off-leash provisionally to Coffey Park and have a committee decide in September whether to make it permanent. The proposal to bring off-leash was made by the DOPR, whose representative, Eric Greene, “ stated that Park had never failed inspection and needs off-leash hours. In practice, dog owners have been coming in the morning – being used for past 2 years as off-leash. We would just be codifying the current practice.” So far as we know, the DOPR has heretofore not involved community boards in making off-leash decisions, and we are told that the Juniper Park Civic Association was explicitly told that decisions about their park would be made by the DOPR, not the community board. So it seems that DOPR policy is to involve community boards only when it suits their anti-leash agenda.

4. An article in the August 9, 2008 New York Daily News by newswriter Amy Sacks, “Slew of Dog Runs Make 'Staycations' for Dogs a Walk in the Park,” says that Prospect Park “offers the city's longest off-leash hours”. We emailed her last week to point out that off-leash hours are standard throughout the city and to ask just where she got this misinformation (or, we suspect, disinformation), but she never responded.

More Off-Leash Lies; The Dogs of Central Park

We’ve reported that FIDO’s website and the DOPR brochure advertising dog hours talk about a “successful 20-year off-leash policy” and attribute the decline in New York’s crime rate to the presence of unleashed dogs in the city’s park. We’ve questioned both of these notions and here is more proof of their falsity. A 2006 article from the New York Times, reporting the arrest of an off-leash scofflaw in Manhattan’s St. Nicholas Park, noted that while “informal Parks Department policy allows dogs to go without leashes in city parks between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m.”, “police officers do not necessarily look the other way during those hours.” The article also says, “As crime has dropped, the number of people who let their dogs frolic in the park has grown,” implying that it was the drop in crime that brought dog owners to the park, not the other way around. Read the whole thing here.

* * * * *

In Central Park this morning around 7:40, 1 large dog was observed entering the Ramble at 75^th St. About 8:10, two small dogs were observed near Azalea Pond in the Ramble. Prominently posted signs at the Ramble’s entrance and inside the Ramble state that dogs must be leashed at all times there. And at 9:15 A.M., 1 large dog was observed on the path by the east shore of the lake, adjacent the Ramble. All of the owners were white.

So, you say, the population around Central Park is largely white (ignoring the horseshoe on the north end); why should the dog walker population be any different? Largely white is different from almost exclusively white, which is what we see among those who let their dogs loose and particularly those who do so illegally; and this is just part of the same pattern we see in Prospect Park, whose surrounding population is much less white.