Park Slopers See Rats and It's Bye-Bye Birdie

Above: a red-tailed hawk and a rat in Prospect Park. The hawk was photographed last month, the rat in 2004.

Park Slope residents—who else?—have noticed that there are rats around the dog beach, the rats urinate in the water, and that is not good for their dogs. The right solution is to put up a sign. The DOPR’s solution: poison the rats. From today’s Brooklyn Paper, “Rat Droppings Poison ‘Dog Beach’”:

Prospect Park’s Dog Beach, where hundreds of dogs cool off each day, has become a haven for disease-ridden rats whose bacteria-laden feces and urine could kill the canines.

The problem, health experts say, is that rats are known to be carriers for leptospitosis, a potentially fatal disease that damages the liver and kidneys of both humans and animals, and has been labeled the “most widespread [animal-transmitted] disease in the world” by the Center for Disease Control.

Pets become infected when they come in contact with bodily tissues or fluids from a diseased animal — something not that hard to do with sick rodents urinating in Dog Beach on a daily basis.

“In humans, this mostly causes a short-term flu-like illness. In fact, most people don’t even know they’re infected,” said CDC spokesman Shawn Shadomy. “But there are over 200 strains, each targeting a specific type of animal.”

Shadomy added that areas like the beach are prime targets for the disease: nearby rainwater can wash in infected urine on the ground, rodents can defecate in the pool itself, and the bacteria is hearty enough to survive in damp areas.

After complaints by Park Slopers this week, Parks Department workers put poisoned bait in the rats’ nests.

But this time of year, rats come out all around the Prospect Park Lake as well. And the DOPR has now generously permitted dogs to swim in that lake during dog hours. So next will no doubt be poisoning those rats too.

And here’s the problem: Prospect Park has a family of resident of red-tailed hawks, and this time of year plays host to all sorts of migrating raptors, most of whom prey on rats. When they eat poisoned rats, they die. It’s nice to know that the DOPR has its priorities straight: after all, it is the Department of Recreation, not the Department of Parks. So that Park Slope dogs can play in Prospect Park’s waterways instead of –heaven forbid—their owners’ fancy bathtubs, a bunch of unsuspecting birds are not going to be flying south this winter.

Dead Dog's Owner Sues Pit Bull Owner

Tuesday’s Daily News reports the aftermath of a fatal dog mauling by an unleashed pit bull, albeit one that seems to have started out leashed:

The owner of a tiny terrier mauled to death by a rampaging pit bull named Spike is taking the fight to the big dog with a $250,000 lawsuit.

Sandy Lee is suing Spike's owner after her beloved 3-pound Yorkie, Dior, was torn into while taking a birthday trot on E. 54th St. in April.

"The pit bull was huge and you could see the intensity in its eyes," Lee said. "It was coming for a kill."

Lee, 33, had just taken Dior to buy $50 worth of snacks for his third birthday when Spike broke free from his leash and pounced on the tiny pooch.

Can a dog really break free from a leash (if the leash doesn’t break and the owner doesn’t let go)?

This is far from the first fatal mauling of another dog by a pit bull that’s off-leash. Here’s another one, at a dog beach at Huntington Beach (California, I guess) last March, and
a third one, at the Long Beach, CA dog beach last January. Others are catalogued here
(although—full disclosure—the website’s stated purpose is to advocate banning pit bulls). But while pit bulls generally may be a problem—according to this report on the dogbitelaw website, based on compiled press reports, pit bull terriers were involved in half of the dog attack deaths and maimings in the U.S. & Canada September 1982 to November 13, 2006—the common denominator is most often that the attacking dog was off-leash. In some cases, it may be that an entirely different breed was involved; in one attack—last October at Prospect Park's dog beach-- that was initially reported to be a fatal attack by a pit bull on a dachshund, it turned out that the perpetrator wasn’t a pit bull after all (and the attack wasn’t fatal). Plainly, dogs that are active and aggressive—just the type of dogs that have “excess energy” that can supposedly be vented only by letting them off-leash—are just the ones who need, for everyone’s safety, to be kept securely on-leash in public.

One would think there ought to be strict liability for attacks by dogs that are unleashed, deliberately or accidentally. That would at least curb irresponsible behavior by owners who care about losing their assets. It still is no solution for the many dog owners who, for whatever reason, do not.

* * * * * * *

Prospect Park this morning around 9 A.M., PE#1-Marcia was spotted with her two unleashed terriers. A park worker instructed her to leash them, which did not stop her from being observed with her unleashed dogs 50 minutes later in the Midwood. And around 8:45 A.M., 4 unleashed dogs were observed in the Ravine: a golden setter accompanied by a middle-aged white woman, a pit bull and mongrel with a young white man, and a pit bull with two black men.

FIDO Says Owners Should Leash Dogs, But Who Pays Attention?

We took one of our occasional glances at the FIDO website. Of note:

1. Pictures of FIDO’s tenth anniversary celebration. Except for a state senator who spoke at the celebration, everyone in each of the pictures is white.

2. Encouragement to take out dog licenses. But nothing about dogs not allowed off-leash unless they are licensed, which in fact is the law. (This Brooklyn Eagle article makes it sound like it’s a new law, from the date the Mayor allowed owners to get licenses on line. It’s not.)

3. Unqualified admonitions to leash dogs at all times on ballfields (including the grassy area between them), wooded areas, paths, bridle paths, and the dog beach except during dog hours. But FIDO, as an advocacy group for off-leash owners—even though it was created by Tupper Thomas, who as a city official is supposed to be looking out for the parks, not a small constituency—is not in the business of trying to make sure that any of this is enforced. And of course, by design, it isn't. One wonders who besides us read these admonitions.

Thus, this morning between roughly 7:45 and 8:10 A.M. we observed the following illegally unleashed dogs:

1. On Wellhouse Drive headed to the main road from the Peninsula dog run.

2. Running back and forth from the Peninsula dog run across the road and into the woods on the other side.

3. Heading down the path from the Nethermead to Wellhouse Road

4. Heading south on the west side of the Lullater; the owner leashed it when she saw us.

5. Heading north on the same path. The owners apparently had no leash; when the dog approached us, making our companion visibly uncomfortable, one of the owners grabbed the dog by its collar and held it until the dog was out of the way.

6. Sitting in the water below Binnen Falls as the owner sat on a rock.

7. Crossing Binnen Bridge.

At about 7:45, there were about 5 dogs on the Peninsula dog run, and we ran across perhaps another 6 leashed dogs. So a plurality of the dogs we ran across, and a majority of unleashed dogs we ran across, were illegally unleashed.

And, of course, all of the owners were white.

SI Pit Bull Update II; Ticket on the Nethermead

Henry Piotrowski, the Staten Island man mauled by two loose pit bulls last month, has done prosecutors a big favor by, as we predicted in our July 2 post, dying of his injuries. Prosecutors will now almost certainly seek, and get, an indictment for second degree murder. Even that charge will probably be plea-bargained down or reduced by a jury, but maybe not. And today's Staten Island Advance reports that the city knew about the pit bulls running loose and did not take the reports seriously.

Meanwhile, a post over at gowanuslounge.com reports a policeman (not, heaven forbid, a PEP agent) ticketing one woman for having her “Rock Wilder” (that’s what the ticket said) off-leash on the Nethermead, apparently after 5 P.M. last Sunday. The post goes on to claim that Prospect Park has “always” had an unofficial off-leash policy on the Nethermead starting at 5 P.M. But actually, that unofficial policy allowed dogs to run on the Nethermead between 5 P.M. and 9 P.M. WEEKDAYS ONLY. There has never been a policy, official or otherwise, allowing off-leash dogs on the Nethermead before 9 P.M. on weekends: read FIDO's website. So this woman was acting illegally even according to that old policy, which was in any event superseded by the current off-leash regulations. She richly deserved what she got, even if it was only the hassle of having to fight the ticket.

Encounter At Battle Pass

This morning we rode out to Riis Park. On my way back we cut through Prospect Park. As we were approaching the hill at Battle Pass at around 8:30am we saw Marcia, PE#1, coming down the path by the Donegan Oak Monument. Both dogs were unleashed, as usual, and she was carrying that wooden post with the sharpened metal spike on the end. We yelled really loudly, "Marcia!" She smiled and yelled, "Hi Guy." We bellowed back, "Leash those dogs" then just kept on riding.

* * * * * * * * * *
5:20 P.M., in the plaza near Central Park's Delacorte Clock, a yuppy-looking white male with a large brown dog. The owner held both ends of the leash. Not only was it not dog hours, but also large prominent signs all around say "Dogs Must Be Leashed At All Times In This Area." Lots of little kids around too. We yelled at him, "Hey mister, leash your dog." The response: "F----you." We're glad he didn't disappoint; this is the type of response we've come to expect from members of the off-leash community, and a sentiment that fairly sums up how they view the rest of us.

Dog Licenses; More About the Playground Sprinkler

According to an article in today's Daily News, dog owners can now get licenses online instead of sending in paper forms. The article says that “just 20 percent of the city's estimated half a million dogs are registered.” But dogs may not be let off-leash unless they are licensed: the off-leash regulations say explicitly that, subject to various limitations we’ve talked about, “properly licensed dogs wearing a license tag and vaccinated against rabies pursuant to the laws of the State of New York and City of New York may be unleashed within a designated park or designated portions of a park between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m” [italics added]. So, we figure there are only two possibilities: (1) only a small minority of New York’s dogs ever are off-leash in the parks—which, if true, would by itself call into question the need for any off-leash policy; or (2) many, and probably most, of the off-leash dogs in the parks are unlicensed, meaning—surprise!—their owners are scofflaws, which would raise the question again of why DOPR officials are declining to enforce the law.

Also, according to this article, the DOPR estimates that NYC has about 500,000 dogs. NYC's population is around 8 million.. According to this Wikipedia article, in 2000 the average household size in NYC was 2.59, so there were more than 3 million households in NYC. Of these, then, fewer than one-sixth own a dog (and some households have more than one). We don’t know yet—we’re trying to find out—what percentage of dog owners bring their dogs to off-leash hours. But you can see why we say that the parks have been hijacked by a small minority of New Yorkers.

Meanwhile, at the forum we blogged on Friday in which a woman complained about being told off for letting her dogs bathe in a playground sprinkler, some fascinating comments. First, one from “rosweed”, who writes:

. . . I have also had confrontations with people in the park about my dog. They’re mostly of the, “you white people and your damn dogs are taking over our park”, “that leash is too long and it’s illegal” . . . My only comment is that people are probably reacting more to the gentrification of the area than to the specifics of what they’re saying. I just smile, don’t say anything and walk away.

Now mind you: this person has every right to take his/her dog to the park. But (1) DOPR rules require, and have required for decades, that the leash be no longer than six feet along; flexi-leashes are illegal, and dog owners who use them—perhaps the majority, from what we’ve seen—are scofflaws; and (2) it’s interesting that we are not the only ones who have observed that we have a serious race—and class—issue here.

Second, more from Bob Marino, engaging in, characteristically, character assassination, calling the person he imagines is the author of this blog—and whom he has never met— “old and fetid”, accusing us of unidentified “lies and distortions”, whining that we “won’t post comments that treat [us] as [we] treat[] others”. He even identifies us with President Bush, which apparently among Bob's supporters is considered character assassination. This is the same Bob Marino who had to retract lies he published on his website about Juniper Park Civic Association after JPCA threatened to sue him for libel. Of course, he has no evidence of anything he says, but lack of any evidence for the positions he’s paid to espouse has gotten Bob this far, so why not continue?

Bob, to our knowledge, you have not submitted any comments for publication on this blog, so in addition to everything else, your comments about what we won’t print are out of line. What are you afraid of? If you think we’ve published “lies and distortions”, we want hear about just what they are and why they aren’t true, because our goal is 100% accuracy. We’d be happy to publish your comments if they meet our guidelines (although if they’re anything like the comments excerpted above, they will not).

We quite obviously have gotten under your skin, and we are puzzled. We cannot understand why you’d care what we say if, as you (and like-minded anti-leashers) claim, the things we say are ”the rantings of an isolated reactionary.” If so, why not ignore us? You have your great victory. Unleashed dogs are swarming, legally and otherwise, all over the parks, and neither the DOPR nor the NYPD is doing anything to stop them. Are you not satisfied unless, Soviet style, everyone is singing the praises of off-leash in unison? Or are you afraid that your victory is a fragile one, built on statistics that you realize are meaningless, a mantra (“successful 20-year policy”) that is both false and meaningless, misrepresentations to public officials, logic that would get laughed out of court, and the ignorance of a public that just might not remain docile if it were fully informed?

Oh, and thanks, Bob, for linking to us in your comment—you’ve singlehandedly doubled our readership.

Bathing Beauties

Some inconsiderate, oblivious woman decided her dogs just had to bathe in a sprinkler in a children’s playground because they’re big and get hot. She complains that a horrified mother demanded that they get out.

As one of the comments noted, dogs are not allowed in children’s playgrounds by order of the NYC Parks Dept: “No dogs allowed: Dogs are not permitted in these areas at any time. These areas include playgrounds, zoos, swimming pools/facilities, bathing areas/beaches, fountains, ballfields, or on basketball/handball/tennis courts.”

Someone else ought to tell her—just as someone should have told those who demanded off-leash privileges to exercise their big dogs—that if she can’t deal with her animals without bothering other people, she shouldn’t keep them. Nothing entitles her to keep big dog in the city. It’s not fair to the dogs and it’s not fair to anyone else. You want a big dog, get a farm.

And in one of the other comments, Bob Marino, president of the New York Council of Dog Owners Groups, an off-leash advocacy organization, pontificates:

Finally, please remember that if dog owners violate rules, those who oppose off-leash or hate dogs are empowered. Many of those people are petty, spiteful individuals who spend inordinate hours attacking city dog owners by spreading their lies, distortions, and propaganda. They have already picked-up on this question and have posted it in numerous locations as “evidence” of the selfishness of dog owners.

We suppose that these "lies, distortions, and propaganda" include our postings about all of the dogs that are illegally unleashed. Bob, if you really care about this, why not get your buddies at PEP to ticket these many individuals--or are they your prime supporters? And while we maintain that the existence of off-leash is sufficient evidence of selfishness of some dog owners (as well as far darker things), the numerous--they're everywhere you look--off-leash scofflaws who are not satisfied with their generous off-leash privileges and insist on inflicting themselves on everyone else illegally as well as legally is simply more evidence of it.

Meanwhile on the Brooklynian Park Slope forum, a female (apparently) dog owner was complaining that her dog—and her friends’ dogs; just how many were there? — were menaced by a couple of pit bulls while they were bathing in the fountains at the Vale of Cashmere:

I experienced this guy yesterday morning. A few of us went to the Vail [sic] area to let our dogs jump in the clean water and he yelled at us about how dogs are supposed to be in Long Meadow not over there.

Our correspondent pointed out:

Why was she letting her mutt play in the water at the Vale fountain in the first place? Her excuse was that Dog Beach is "too dirty" for her precious canine snowflake! "Too dirty.."??? I mean honestly lady ..it's a dog!! Get over yourself! Meanwhile, the birds have nowhere left in Prospect Park to call their own. It's ridiculous!

Thank you Datnioides for the tip. Read the entire discussion. Only one person pointed out that all of the owners deserve tickets, the pit bull owner for having his dogs off-leash in a non-off-leash area and the others for letting their dogs in the fountain. One person even had the nerve to cite the rule that "Dogs should not be off-leash during off-leash hours if they are not responsive to voice command." But this is Park Slope, where laws seem to apply to everyone else.