On dogs, training and leashes only matter a little. The problem is birds immediately identify a dog as a dangerous predator. They are far less bothered by humans.
Birds pay more attention that we might realize. They identify potential threats from much farther away that we do. This leads to them being disturbed even when the casual rule-breaking dog walker thinks "I'm not doing anything wrong."
I'm extremely surprised so many birds abandoned their nests permanently. I would have expected only the closest nests to be abandoned.
Some people rely on their drones to tell them when they are in a no-fly zone. Terrible idea. Once at Hayward Regional Shoreline, I had to tell a guy that he was potentially creating a problem. I told him the two locations where endangered species can be found and that he should avoid -- and also that he was definitely within the limits of Hayward Regional Airport. He was both contrite and horrified that his drone didn't tell him.
They other issue is boundary-pushing. Literally. Give people a space, and many people will act like selfish toddlers and push the boundaries. Sunnyvale Baylands allows drones and it's a great space for them. There is a clearly marked fence they must not go beyond. So of course people constantly violate the fence. The fence is to a marshland with endangered species. Drones can fail, and a drone that falls into the marsh is not retrievable and then what happens to the toxins in the battery?
How do these birds exist in the wild if a single predator sighting causes them to abandon their eggs?
Edit: I'm downvoted, so this is a legitimate question. How could it be that these birds have lasted when one predator causes the abandonment of 3000 eggs? Has no predator ever appeared on these islands?
It was more than just "a single predator sighting." The article says it was two drones and one of them crashed, which is a lot more dramatic. They didn't say how close the crash was to the nesting birds. And they didn't say how long the drones were flying around and how they were flying around before the birds decided to abandon. We don't know, perhaps they were buzzing the terns at a low altitude, or hovering for a long time in a way that looked like a falcon.
There's a big difference between a dangerous looking person passing you by on a busy street, and one that's standing on the sidewalk in front of your house, staring at your window for an hour.
Some birds are very neophobic. And some types of birds have less commitment to eggs than chicks -- a new nest and new eggs can be laid, but actual hatched chicks are much harder to abandon. Terns are very social, so a few abandoning their nests might easily lead to a mass exodus.
Admittedly the drone crashing is more than a sighting, but it still stands that that is less than what a real predator would do. I just cant imagine these birds surviving while they abandon all that en mass every time a falcon attacks them. Seems like there has to be more to this story
It's quite possible. According to https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/generation-seabirds-wiped-dr... , while a news crew was interviewing the environmental scientist in charge and a DFW officer, a third person brought and began flying a drone, sending it directly toward another tern colony. I suspect that being buzzed by drones has been going on for a while and perhaps the crash was just the last straw.
That's exactly why I'm surprised. I don't understand why the birds don't come back after the excitement is over -- except possibly the ones closest to the crash site.
Is it possible that in the circumstances, they can't find their nests? I assume that normally all the birds don't fly off all at once, so maybe that makes it easier to find their nests - perhaps they remember whose nests are next to whom (or is that too complex for birds?)- but when all the birds fly off at once then it becomes impossible to find one's own nest?
I don't think people are used to following the rules anymore. Not when they themselves have to check. People like automatic control systems. In this case, something that bricks the drone if it goes across the fence :) (But that's just my tongue-in-cheek solution).
Some evidence of the drone would be a nice addition. Or the construction of the nearby multimillion dollar homes they mention. I'm curious how they narrowed it down to two drone flights.
I am guessing that drones are to birds what a Martian invasion would be to us - suddenly a new species has arrived and is persistent - it can go everywhere birds can go, it has spare energy enough to make aggressive noises constantly and it completely ignores any aggressive actions and attacks made to drive the drone off.
It has arrived and taken over the territory completely - so abandon the area.
My problem is if my conjecture is true, we basically have to ban drones ... everywhere.
While "eradication" evokes killing and hostility, many small island communities all over the world which cohabitate with rare and vulnerable bird species do ban or severely restrict the ownership of cats.
Cats are living things which we have a special relationship with, drones are not.
Some culture value life more than things, so unsurprisingly it'll be easier to propose a ban things than the eradication of cats.
I decided to read the comments on the linked article and got depressed. It's a similar feeling to what Ethan Hawke portrayed in First Reformed. Caring about nature is a lonely and foreboding state of being.
Interesting. I wonder why the drone caused such a disproportionate response. The article doesn't address it but I doubt that if, say, an eagle had landed or started killing birds they would have abandoned so many eggs.
I fly drones including with commercial filming permits at conservation parks/islands with large bird populations. Different types of birds react in various ways to a drone though I've never noticed similar birds to these act in an overly panicked way. Some types of birds will take flight and then resettle, some will circle closely and try to intimidate the drone (galahs), some charge or consider attacking it (osprey, whistling kite), some ignore it (wedge tailed eagles - at least in my experience so far^), etc.
The permit in a case like this would require that I land safely if the presence of the drone alters the behaviour of the birds (even if they're staying on the ground, but bobbing their head). Here's a video below from a tiny, low island with a bird population in the tens of thousands, where a group of hikers have possibly spooked birds that are then flying towards the drone from the other side of the island. Most passed under the drone, suggesting they weren't concerned; I was keeping the drone still or moving slowly and predictably towards where I could land on the beach. This flock was going through for some time. I don't think these are terns, but there were crested terns on that island.
I don't mean to discount the impact of drones, but I suspect that a repeated close drone presence is more likely to cause birds to abandon a nest than a crash. That is generally the concern with raptor nests where I live.
My thought when reading the article was that off-leash dogs might've had the main impact in abandonment of eggs, but that drones are more likely to make a headline for the story. Couldn't find an original press release, but every news headline is about drones.
^ Here's one encounter with a wedge-tailed eagle. It beat its wings perhaps to make sure it was clear but didn't seem to move its head at all. In other cases, they've not beaten their wings or moved their heads so weren't visibly bothered. https://bit.ly/3uVIvn5
And here's a whistling kite coming in to attack but then changing its mind at the last moment: https://bit.ly/3vTJ0za
As a mitigation, consider a slower, quieter, winged drone. With gyro stabilization, one could be built to mimic the profile of a large non-predator, recognizable as such to the vulnerable birds.
Vulture, goose, albatross ...
Drone hackers: Consider the business opportunity here.
Fixed wing drones require considerably more skill and training to fly. They also cannot take off/land vertically, they need a runway or catapult/arrest system to operate. As a result, fixed wing drones are not generally a realistic substitute for quad-copter drones.
The poster you're replying to has already mentioned getting permits to fly near wildlife, and taking appropriate consideration for the welfare of the birds being filmed. It sounds like they're doing a fine job of flying responsibly, already.
My interaction with birds is not a key part of my drone work, just incidental. The drone I have is the best option for what I need - often need to launch from a boat, hand-catch, move precisely amongst trees, etc.
Off leash dogs and bikes could not have reached the nesting site. It is an island with a fence between the trail and the waterways surrounding the island. I dunno maybe the barking could have caused a disturbance.
I was picturing an island well off shore. It's right next to a highway! Not sure exactly which island in the complex held the eggs, but one is about 100m from a campground/RV park.
Wouldn’t the drones flying put it into a whole different threat category from humans/dogs/bikes? Birds are probably smart enough to realize hikers cannot threaten them or their eggs if they are up in a tree, but a large, fast flying object is pretty much game over for them and their eggs unless they abandon the area entirely.
Your theory that dogs are the main cause just doesn’t make sense to me, birds can’t be so dumb that they leave their eggs to rot because a dog is walking around below them, why even bother evolving flight and nesting in trees?
A dog off-leash would rip through and harass ever bird in the vicinity as well as damage any egg they wanted to. The "island" looks like it's in a shallow swamp that a dog could run across easily enough, though someone mentioned the area is usually fenced.
Here's a video of me flying a drone slowly over a group of crested terns sitting on rocks (birds similar to those in the story). I am maybe six feet above them. The only time they really moved was when a large wave hit the rocks and they left and returned when it subsided. There are a few dozen birds under the drone, while others are returning after the wave washed through - you can see they are not particularly bothered by it. (Obviously a drone crashing into the ground would spook them more.)
Some bird species tend to take-off and fly about when disturbed. This may causes an energy defecit that could have an effect. Birds may have evolved to roost for a particular portion of the day and be put under stress if they can't. There is not necessarily good science on this but wading or coastal birds are probably best avoided.
The article mentions other disturbances from dogs, bikers and walkers. Perhaps the drones were the last drop in the bucket to convince the birds "this area is unsafe for nesting".
It's a pretty devastating evolutionary loss to have to abandon your offspring due to a disturbance. This is why mammals carry their "eggs". Birds couldn't evolve this way as they're very sensitive to weight due to flight.
Eagle populations have recovered enough to become a problem for colony-nesting species. Murres on the North American west coast are one example [0].
Walking, dog, and bicycle restrictions are normal in wildlife refuges that prioritize being a wildlife refuge ahead of recreational use. Humans walking can be interpreted as a potential predation threat. Bicycling has a tall, loping aspect that checks off more of the "predator" boxes than walking. Dogs are always identified as an irrefutable predation threat by wildlife, on or off leash.
Drones peering into a bird nursury are likely to get a pretty similar reaction from birds as if it was a human nursury, minus the adults calling police or coming after you themselves. If parents decide there's a problem, they will abandon the nursury.
Why not put cameras on perimeter and figure out some unhackable protocol for drones to identify themselves once entering these protected geofences. The drone should autopilot away from the geofence via the protocol and it should be some encrypted method that no one can spoof and signed by various agencies protecting wildlife, etc.
My understanding is that larger drones (like any other aircraft) must carry transponders that report a registered call sign. Sure it's "hackable" by lying but that's a crime.
“ That’s contributed not only to increased drone activity, but also to more dogs and bicycles on the trails – all of which are prohibited.
“We’ve seen a significant increase in dogs, particularly off-leash,” Loebl said. “That’s devastating for wildlife and this is prime nesting season. The dogs chase the birds and the birds abandon their nests.”
Another problem is the development of multimillion-dollar homes on the hillside at the north end of the reserve overlooking the wetlands, said Fish and Wildlife warden Nick Molsberry. While most residents respect the sensitive nature of the estuary, there are a few scofflaws, he said.
“It’s residents that sometimes feel entitled, that feel they should be able to use the land as they like,” Molsberry said. Authorities are ramping up enforcement and citing people who break the rules. “
It’s sad to see people taking ignorant actions that harm future generations from experiencing nature.
I think dog owners are generally good people who have done really great things but I also sometimes feel like there might be a few entitled jerks in their ranks, especially pit bull owners.
My last girlfriend picked me up in San Diego and we drove 6 hours to Tucson after we had been apart for about a month. During the drive with her two dogs she told me while I was away there was an incident where her dog mauled a smaller dog and then bit the owner's face when she bent over to rescue her small dog. Her take away was pride as she was smart enough to just run off with her dog implying an idiot like me would have stayed and taken responsibility.
My response was there are two options, your dog either needs to be destroyed or never off leash again and we didn't discuss further. Then we stopped somewhere to take a break and she let her dogs run out of the car off leash. When my jaw dropped, she replied, "it's no problem, I don't see anyone around".
So it's worse than getting "hostile" or "violent" as you mentioned. Many of these people never learn. You could sue them into oblivion and the take away would be they are the victim of an unjust world.
Don't know about the US, but in my jurisdiction, the dog would be killed by the police if it could be proved that it had bitten a human. There's very few exceptions to these rulings.
>the dog would be killed by the police if it could be proved that it had bitten a human
and here lies the main issue - the dog gets punished for what is mainly the owner's fault (it is somewhat similar to destroying the gun in case of killing while letting the killer go free). I'm generally against corporal punishment, and this is one of the few exceptions where i think corporal punishment would be very useful - any damage inflicted by your dog as a result of your gross negligence should be inflicted as a punishment on you.
As a side note: Do not ever go into between two dogs fighting, even if both dogs know you and are normally super team.
It's not just a risk for you but can also make the dogs involved more aggressive.
Furthermore most dogs (which do not have mental issues or are badly wrongly trained) normally won't kill or majorly injure the other dog but mainly make it submit. But if you step in thinks can still escalate.
Lastly the problem are not dogs of the leach, but people not training their dogs properly (and often not understanding/ignoring that they don't train their dog properly). Or people buying dogs which are bread (and potentially even trained) to be super aggressive. Which IMHO is a no-go and requires the dog to muzzled nearly always outside of private properties (through ONLY for this dogs bread to be aggressive, e.g. for dog fighting).
I have been in areas where dogs are allowed to be of the leach frequently and is generally not a problem, most dog holders living around where I live do not use a leach when walking their dogs in the evening and it's not a problem.
EDIT: Wrt. the main thread, if you dog is properly trained you can have it walk alongside you without a leach even with birds close by and it won't run to the birds. A lot of dogs I meat are good but not hat good trained so while there really is no reason to put them on the leach in the city or common German forest areas you would put them on the leach if you enter a area with e.g. ground breading birds.
when it comes to dogs there are a lot of misinformation and contradictory unverified advises floating around
>normally won't kill or majorly injure the other dog but mainly make it submit
some are doing it by biting and sinking their teeth deep into the back of the neck of the victim. So it does make sense to step in before that happens, as well as to step in to stop that when that is already going on (i've met owners who had that happen to their dogs, and couple times i stepped in right before that was going to happen to my dog)
It's a pretty normal part of dogs inter-social behaviour, as you should now the back of the neck of dogs is used by parent dogs to discipline (and sometimes carry) their pubs. In turn it's also used to make dogs submit in social fights between them. Which is a normal/natural part of there social interaction.
And yes there are aggressive and dangers dogs, too.
Still if you step in you are likely increasing the aggression the other dog has against your dog. Which if it repeatedly happens with the same dogs could make the situation problematic if you at some point are not fast enough to step in.
> Which is a normal/natural part of there social interaction.
i understand that you describe a consistent and logical model. Unfortunately it has nothing in common with the reality i know. In one case it was a large labrador - a lot of muscle on hit back neck - so he got an inch deep wounds, a lot of stitches and drainage for a week, in another case it was Chihuahua - not much tissue - so he ended up with a series of surgeries on the bones and cartilage in his shoulders.
The real PSA here is that sex can be insanely powerful. Had we not separated for a month, I would have married her since there would have been no preceding window of clarity. After that 6hr drive I ended the relationship and did not accept her friends with benefits counter-offer.
What's the point of walking a dog on a leash, though? Dogs need to stretch their legs. They're supposed to run around. The underlying problem is people taking in animals as pets without taking the responsibility that should be required as a dog owner.
A dog needs to run, but not all the time and in all places. Walking on a leash is a required skill unless you live in a very remote area that you never leave.
I'm American, but I've lived in Germany (Hamburg) for ~1 year, cumulatively. I recall most dogs being leashed, but at least a few not. It didn't seem to matter to me, because every dog there was damn well trained. In that year, I think can recall one instance of a dog barking inappropriately (to the mortification of its owner).
I remember one dog in particular, which was unleashed and running with its owner, who was on a bike. It would run ahead, staying on the correct part of the sidewalk, until it reached a crosswalk or corner, then stop and calmly wait for its owner to catch up and give permission to cross. I think one time (of the 3 crosswalks it was in view for) it got impatient and went back to its owner instead of waiting in place.
As a result, dogs are commonly (though not always) allowed in restaurants -- they stay quietly under the table -- and some other venues, which would be unthinkable in the US.
There's not too much of a point to this comment, just sharing perspective. I guess if anything it's that I wouldn't be so categorical about "if X, then Y, period".
Dogs need (outdoor) space. As a dog owner you carry that responsibility.
Having a garden to (mostly) take care of this seems obvious. If not, when using public space instead, it seems strange to expect others (wildlife, kids,...) to take this for granted?
> Christian asked Amy to leash her dog, and she allegedly refused. By his own account, Christian then said, "Look, if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it," and beckoned the dog toward him with a dog treat.[3] Amy then yelled, "Don't you touch my dog!"[3] Christian then began recording on his cellphone.[1][3]
> “ME: All you have to do is take him to the other side of the drive, outside the Ramble, and you can let him run off leash all you want.
> “HER: It’s too dangerous.
> “ME: Look, if you’re going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it.
> “HER: What’s that?
> “ME (to the dog): Come here, puppy!
> “HER: He won’t come to you.
> “ME: We’ll see about that…” before adding, “I pull out the dog treats I carry for just for such intransigence. I didn’t even get a chance to toss any treats to the pooch before Karen scrambled to grab the dog.
> “HER: DON’T YOU TOUCH MY DOG!!!!!
> “That’s when I started video recording with my iPhone, and when her inner Karen fully emerged and took a dark turn..
I have no interest in defending or accusing anyone nor in discussing whether her action in the video where motivated and/or reasonable. But to say that she had no basis to perceive this as threathing behaviour (`filing a false police report`) feels a bit of a stretch.
PS: Obviously this topic can be seen from many angles, my response to you comment is almost entirely due to the "false" in "filing a false police report", had you substituted "racially motivated" this comment would be moot.
The guy approached her, told her to put her dog on the leash, and then said something along the lines of "Put your dog on leash or I'm going to do something you're not going to like".
And then he pulled dog treats out of his pocket(he doesn't have a dog, he carries them for confrontations with dog owners he gets into) and attempted to lure the dog away from her.
I think, if the races were reversed, the off-leash person would have been seen as the victim, and the dude would have been told "You aren't the park police - mind your own business".
However, because she called the police and said a black man was accosting her, twitter/cnn took that to mean she was trying to get the police to show up to kill this dude, which is a crazy idea to me, considering the NYPD has hundreds of thousands of interactions with black people every year and almost all of them end in the person not being killed.
She also described him as a man, and as "with a bike helmet" multiple times, which leads me to believe she was just "describing the perp" like they do in crime shows when people call the emergency services, and not saying "Hey 911, come kill this black man!"
Yes, because that is what she thought was happening. "I'm going to do something you don't like" sure does sound like a threat to me.
She also said "a man with a bike helmet"...do you think she is especially afraid of bikers? Isn't the most reasonable reading that she is describing the man, and not scheming that she can get the cops to come out and kill this stranger who is annoying her?
> they're also the type to get hostile and even violent if you say anything
Or, they're the type who thinks everyone loves dogs and that you know their dog is just the sweetest thing ever.
I live in Austin (which is ground zero for irresponsible dog owners) and I can't count the number of times some huge unleashed dog runs up on me out of nowhere, followed by their owner shouting "oh, he's really friendly!"
I’ve lived in both places. You’re totally right. Most Americans would be shocked at the level of public disruption dogs are allowed in many other places.
A little dog once nipped my 90 year old grandpa in his porch. My grandpa responded with a swift kidney blow from his cane.
The owner looked furious but caught me staring him in the eye in time to recompose himself and get off of our front yard.
The bloody nerve. You have your dog take its daily piss on our wall - a wall that my grandma cleans, btw. The dog takes its daily piss and my grandpa decides to ignore it, but then you don’t stop the thing from nipping him?
Oh well the dog pissed blood for a week after that
Had you or your grandparents thought about maybe first asking the owner to keep the dog off the property? Maybe conveying to the owner that your grandmother has been cleaning the wall and (I'm assuming) you and your family aren't a fan of dogs.
Im going to go on a limb here and guess you're not from a third world country? My grandparents got burglarized on average once per year. “Asking” Argentines to politely respect private property is cute.
That being said, my grandpa ignored the pissing. The kidney blow was in response to the nip. And the dog got lucky: the old man spent his life building roads in guerrilla infected mountains.
No. A dog is not a human being, unless there is another factor (like your dog was defending you) youre looking at a murder charge. No matter how angry you might get the best you should keep your cool. Otherwise you're betting on being the benevolence of nine.
Thankfully this is a felony in at least some states now.
> My father told me a story of a man walking in a park one day when an unleashed dog walked up to him. The man took out his handgun and shot it.
Not a threatening dog, just a fucking dog walking up to somebody. This is a disgusting line of thought that anyone would take a life purely based on an animal approaching you.
It makes me question my involvement in a community where people are so unhinged they think taking out a gun and shooting someone's random dog is appropriate. How far we've come from To Kill a Mockingbird is astounding.
I think I am done with this place. What a disappointing thread.
An unleashed dog comes up to you where its not supposed to.
- What are its intentions?
- Is it aggressive?
- Is it rabid?
Its no different than if a coyote came up and accosted you. Worse, because dogs are socialized not to fear man.
My neighbor had an aggressive dog (german shepherd) and every time my kid was outside in the backyard I made sure to carry a weapon to kill it if need be. It didn't really matter, my kid was too scared of it to play in the backyard.
I was planning on calling the city to have it destroyed but she moved out.
And for all you down voters... yes I talked to her. It was obvious talking with her where the dog got its attitude from.
You have effectively picked the worst sample of dogs, and established a standard that a human being may take a life based on that standard.
Dogs have tells too, and there's common ones that most dog owners will know:
- ears backed with tail tucked or quick wagging
- cowering / laying down (in a non-relaxed posture)
- deep growls and a leg spread defensive stance
And there's tells that occur far before the above. Dogs are domesticated animals (with millions of years of domestication, as opposed to cats), so comparing them in your head to a coyote is a false dichotomy from the get-go.
Your situation and GPs are very different. GP has specifically framed a dog that walked up to them off-leash. You are talking about having to potentially defend a child's life. There's a massive chasm between the two both legally and ethically.
I’m not a dog owner and it’s not my responsibility to determine the friendly unleashed dogs from the unfriendly ones. In an area where a leash is required, my assumption is they’re all unfriendly and their owners are all selfish idiots.
“Leash your fucking dog” is my go-to. “Are you selfish or stupid?” works, too.
I still have a (fading) scar on my calf from that one time I ran past some tables in a cafe as a toddler. I hold no ill will towards the dog that leapt out from under a table and sunk his jaws into my leg before the owners could even react. But let's be clear that big dog + unfamiliar small child is not about "can you read the tells".
Sure, it doesn't always work that way. Dogs are still animals and can be unpredictable. That does not rise to the level of shooting some stray or off-leash dog. I still have puncture marks in my hand from when I dislodged a sucker from my childhood dogs throat and he bit down.
Defending yourself and being a violent person are two different things. The man who shoots any off-leash or stray dog is just violent.
There are a lot of places that put on their website or Google maps that they're dog friendly and allow off-leash or on-leash visits. So "always" is not even near correct here, it is on a dog owner (and other visitors) to determine whether the place they're visiting is dog-friendly and to what degree.
??? If youre in an off leash park do what ever you want. No one is arguing that.
Im annoyed at the leash-less dogs in parks where dogs aren't even allowed. Although they're the least of my problems, a neighbor has a couple of pet pigs.
I'm guessing you missed the whole point of who I was replying to. They weren't defending anyone or talking about an aggressive dog, they were talking about a dog that walked up to a man and he shot it. That was the example. That is a by definition example of a sociopath, dog owners not putting their stupid dog on a leash is probably irresponsible or selfish, but not sociopathic.
I've already acknowledged there's nuance to the idea of being able to shoot a dog, much like there is to shooting a human. You were so desperate to argue your silly little point about defense that you forgot you, and some of the other folks here, are defending someone who shot a dog for no reason.
That's who you defended and voted for. That's what I was upset about.
Yeah, sure, I mentioned tells because having more information is better. The onus is on me to protect my dog from sociopaths who bring guns to shoot random dogs that walk up to them (as a reminder, that is the situation we're discussing apart from your "defense of a child" scenario)
Your dog comes up and sniffs me, fine. Slobber sucks but whatever.
But if it yelps, barks, gets territorial, bares his teeth, etc, the sociopath (ie unable to behave properly in society) is the dog owner who cant keep the dog on a leech.
> would take a life purely based on an animal approaching you
Which is it, an animal or a life? The phrase "take a life" implies some sort of value akin to that of a human life. If you want to elevate animals to that level, then acknowledge that you take a life when you slap a mosquito or step on an ant, yet I doubt you apply the same moralizing to anyone else who does so.
> It makes me question my involvement in a community where people are so unhinged they think taking out a gun and shooting someone's random dog is appropriate.
I think the key thing is that an off leash dog ceases to become "someone's random dog". It being "someone's dog" gives it value by being recognized as another person's property. Once off leash, relative to other people it's just a dog now; the owner has effectively abdicated responsibility of ownership for the dog by letting it off the leash. At that point it's not "someone's dog" any more than a bird with a FWS band is "someone's bird". Consequently treating it like any other animals is acceptable.
I say all of this as someone who loves dogs, and I even enjoy friendly dogs approaching me. But they 100% should be on leash and unable to approach me. I wouldn't blame someone for shooting a dog in the exact same circumstances.
> Once off leash, relative to other people it's just a dog now; the owner has effectively abdicated responsibility of ownership for the dog by letting it off the leash
Do you think it's okay to walk around and shoot strays? At least dog pounds in the US will make an attempt at a nonviolent death for a stray animal.
Let me be clear, it's not moralizing when it's ethically unsound to shoot a dog that does nothing else than walk up to you. When I chose "life" it's probably because I live with my dog. She has a personality, she has quirks, she learns from me and even teaches me things. If I saw her brains get blown out by some random dude because she walked up (and that was the framing) what am I in bounds to do? I can tell you, what I'm allowed to do would be of little consequence to me, because although that is just a dog to you, to me you took an animal that I know on a level deeper than I know most humans.
> At that point it's not "someone's dog" any more than a bird with a FWS band is "someone's bird". Consequently treating it like any other animals is acceptable.
Birds are not domesticated and we certainly treat domesticated animals differently in the context of the law and societal expectations. Dogs being the most and longest domesticated animal, whose behavior has been shaped and maintained over millions of years.
I've not witnessed this hostility or violence, but as with all things there's probably some tiny fraction of the population that motivates comments like this one.
I have had non-dog owners speak pretty nastily to me, whether it's about my dog doing something natural (like defecating, which I carry bags for) or not realizing that areas are off-leash. I typically find the latter when I go camping (though there are certainly trails and campgrounds that are non-off leash this usually isn't about the dog itself, but the presence of predatory or endangered wildlife).
As a responsible dog owner, I check the beaches I'm going to, I check the parks (including trails and campgrounds) I go to, my dog is harnessed rather than collared, and my dog is properly socialized for both humans and animals (cats too!)
Many are often also surprised that their off-leash little companion suddenly wants chase me and go for my ankle as I bicycle past. I've had a couple narrow misses by sprinting away but as I age I'm becoming more willing to properly repel an attack.
There is perhaps worse than off-leash: on a bloody 16 feet retractable leash, with the dog on one side of the road, and the owner on the other side... So called "retractable", because you cannot pull anything.
A friend suffered a bicycle crash and killed a dog like that. I can see from my place all the time the same situation waiting to happen, with women busy chatting on one side, and not caring at all about where the dog goes. When I had to walk the dog of a former girlfriend on a road/street side, I always took the short, fixed leash, and in places where room was scarce, I even kept my second hand further on the leash to be able to shorten it quickly if needed.
Just a couple of days ago, a bit different situations. I was cycling uphill on a small road, and there was a woman (it's almost always a woman, in fact) with a dog at her feet on the right of the road. I prepared to move a bit to the left to give them space while taking over. But the dog started coming to me (not aggressively), and the woman let the leash unroll, and unroll, and unroll. She never stopped it, but started yelling: not at the dog to call it back (which has a dubious success rate in general but shows a little bit of conscience at least), but at me! She was telling me to slow down, that I was crazy and dangerous. I said it was uphill, and I suck at climbing, so I was cycling at the ridiculous speed of 5 mph (yes, five)... And I was now on the opposite side of the road. It's a very bad idea to yell at me, it makes me completely snap, so the result was not what she expected.
Coming back to off-leash, I was bitten in the calf while riding last year by two dogs (so far dogs had only gone for my trousers, but this time they went through the trouser, through the sock, and through the skin). The owner was standing 10 yards away, he didn't do or say anything. He didn't give a damn. In the little "discussion" had with the cretin, he kept claiming his dogs do not bite... while they were biting and pulling my trouser again... At no point he tried to regain control of his dogs. As it should be done, I reported it to the Mayor, who MUST take measures: here, there is no immediate death penalty for such behaviour, but the Mayor MUST make sure the dog should first be sent to a vet for behavioural examination. She didn't do anything.
At my place, there are plenty of dogs loose all day long. The (French) law is lax, but even the few restrictions are never enforced. They shit and dig holes in people's open gardens, they occasionally attack and sometimes kill other people's pets (dogs and cats). Then you have shepherds dogs, who attack cyclists and occasionally pedestrians, even on public roads (and it's not a matter of protection, these bastards generally attack people in the back, after they have passed by); often farmers' dogs haven't been trained at all, or in the case of livestock farmers only trained to one purpose and the relation with humans was not part of it. When I was living in another country, dogs were never loose: either in a fenced yard, or on a leash ; whether they were pet dogs, shepherds dogs, sledge dogs or whatever type of dog and dog owner you may imagine. But over here people will tell you this is impossible. Gee...
There are plenty of dogs these days. Cats are even worse, it is a proliferation (their number was multiplied by 2 or 3 in a few decades, IIRC), and due to their nature, they are even less kept under control. Luckily, they are also less a danger to humans, but they are worse about gardens, because contrarily to dogs, they ignore fences :-)
It's like everyone wants to own a pet for the fun side, but the negative externalities are for others to undergo. Of course I don't do justice to the owners who care and pay attention, they do exist :-) but of course the others are more noticeable.
There's a new fenced dog park near me. Lately people have been going there but letting their dogs off leash in the filed next to the park. There are many new homes and lots of kids in the area. It's maddening.
I frequently walk my dogs without leash. They follow my command, don't disturb other people or dogs unless both parties engage and generally I don't do anything that someone who has a leash wouldn't be doing. They also walk side-by-side with me when off-leash. This is very common in the city I live and surrounding area (Barcelona, Spain and Catalunya). Both me and others without leashes are indistinctive from people who are using leashes.
How is inconsiderate if the dogs themselves are behaving? Maybe there is something I'm missing, and I'd like to understand your point of view. I could understand you think it's inconsiderate if people don't have control on their dogs and they annoy others while the owners do nothing, then I agree with you. But just because of being off-leash? Not sure I understand that line of reasoning.
Edit: Just to clarify further, if I did meet someone who asks me to leash my dog I would obviously do so without hostility or violence. In my ~6 years of having dogs in Barcelona, that has yet to happen even once.
- Laws are virtually never there to regulate the median case. They're there to reduce the risk of harm. The reason we don't let people have automatic weapons isn't because most people would go on a killing spree if they had one, it's that a tiny minority would, and that would be disastrous.
- It's literally only been just yesterday that I watched someone's "well behaved" dog attack my friend's dog on a leash. He had to pull the (probably 3x larger) dog off of his. My brother had stitches on his face from being bitten as a kid by someone's "well behaved" dog. I have zero faith in dog owners' ability to self-regulate.
- I'm sure you have the one dog in the world that doesn't chase birds. Most dogs do. This is specifically about that case.
>- I'm sure you have the one dog in the world that doesn't chase birds. Most dogs do. This is specifically about that case.
This really demonstrates your ignorance. Such dogs are not uncommon, particularly when well trained. My dog doesn't chase birds. She's a border collie that lives for frisbee and frisbee only. I taught her the herding maneuvers, but she does it lackadaisically and it's hard to get her to give eye to chickens. She's just not into it, but she'll humor me if I tell her to do it. Frisbee though... she is. And she can be at a dead sprint after a frisbee in flight and if I say "Stop" she'll stop on a dime. If the frisbee drifts off the field and into the street, she'll simply stop on the edge of the grass or sidewalk and wait for my ok to go get it without me saying anything.
And my dog really isn't special. Honestly, she has been a difficult to train dog from day one, but she has still been trained. Her mother though... man she's a true pleasure to work with.
I usually walk her off leash as well. When people ask me to put her on leash, I do, and I hold it with a loose pinky finger since it's kind of a joke because of how unneeded it is.
> How is it inconsiderate if the dogs themselves are behaving?
This is the problem right here. We have no idea whether your dogs are properly trained or not. There is no certification or regulation for having a dog off leash. We have no idea if they’re going to suddenly snap and, in the worst case scenario, viciously attack a baby, something they are biologically quite capable of.
It is probably different in collectivist societies where folks consider proper training a prerequisite to going off-leash, but where I’m from we have a scourge of ignorant owners who are not in control of their dogs. They ruin it for everybody.
Can I ask where you're from? This might be a cultural difference. I mentioned originally in another comment (then removed it as it looked a bit hostile) that this might be something more US-centric as it hasn't been a problem anywhere I've seen in Europe. I don't mean to bash the USA here, but I think there might be more "this is a free country and I can do what I want..." types over there who (if they have a dog) are more likely to not be considerate of others or respond aggressively when confronted about such behaviour. We'd be talking in cliches and stereotypes of course, but I imagine that sort of person is antisocial generally. I dunno, I'm just trying to rationalize the stark differences in our experiences because here dog owners are by and large extremely considerate.
Not sure. I will just share my own personal experience.
I live in Germany and I go to parks to freestyle with a soccer ball. My issue has always been dogs off lease interfering with my personal business. I have some balls with bite marks. I have been snubbed and sometimes gotten a rude response from owners.
I have lived in the USA also. My observation generally is that people find it weird when you say you don't like dogs/cats/etc -- almost like they are hearing it for the first time. This was a big difference from my home place.
I don't hate them, I just feel totally uncomfortable. Sometimes I feel my heart racing or I just totally freeze when I see a dog off lease nearby. (I would love to fix this: would appreciate any pointers).
Ah so that’s the sort of inconsiderate stuff I was saying I havent personally seen, but I guess it does exist here after all. So if there are people playing with something a dog might consider a “toy” (a frisbee, football etc) or having a picnic everyone I know would leash their dog unless they’re the type who are totally not into these things (some dogs are enamoured with their owners and just are not interested in the outside world). Mine wouldn’t bother anyone, he’s too interested in his own frisbee, but I do it as its just a good idea anyway
I’ve had a couple of friends who were afraid like you, where I would not bring my dog (a Vizsla - Quite energetic and very into people, so not a good idea to take him if I want those friends to feel comfortable). They started to come round to dogs generally after hanging out with friends that have smaller more docile breeds. Eventually they felt more comfortable and after shorter interactions with mine they got familiar with how the dog behaves, what motivates them, what they understand etc and slowly figure out that most are similar. So I’m not sure this is helpful, but that’s been my experience.
I think we’re already past cliches and stereotypes when talking of all dog owners who walk without a leash!
I’m from USA. On the same page with you here about the collectivist vs individual freedom. As you noted it’s a tragedy of the commons—-because unquestioned individual freedom is prized so heavily in USA, some dog owners take advantage of it without appropriate precaution, and those people tend to do things like call the police on black people, or scare and injure children by accident with their dogs, and these incidents correspondingly build our stereotype of off-leashers. Ironically this also leads to laws and rules and a general social attitude that restrict our individual freedom to walk dogs off leash.
In that way, Europeans are more ‘individually free’ on this topic because, as you note, off leash dog walking is totally normal over there because people wouldn’t think of doing it without appropriate control of their dog. Interesting to think about the tension and paradoxes between individual and collectivist freedoms.
We actually do have such a tax! And I'm glad you reminded me because my residency status changed meaning that I now need to start paying this :D
The tax is from the local municipality, and I think it’s for upkeep of some dog infrastructure - dedicated dog parks, bins with little bags. It’s not much
> As you noted it’s a tragedy of the commons—-because unquestioned individual freedom is prized so heavily in USA, some dog owners take advantage of it without appropriate precaution, and those people tend to do things like call the police on black people
This passage doesn't make sense. It's a word salad.
Wait it's not actually word salad, it makes sense. I was out and about and wasn't able to spend time reading it before dashing off my flippant jokey reply below, so I only read it now. So despite the Saturday Spliff, blamazon is pretty coherent. Can you describe what doesn't make sense to you?
I'm not sure where to begin, and frankly I'm astonished you think any of it "makes sense".
To start with, do you know what a tragedy of the commons is?
Second, why would "individual freedom being prized so heavily" entail "people tending to do things like call the police"? Are you familiar with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_collaborator and the like in authoritarian countries?
Third, what's the source for this bizarre claim that "those [dog owners] tend to do things like call the police on black people"?
Fourth, in what way is the latter at all relevant to the topic?
In the Netherlands people who let their dogs free without a leash is a huge problem in many areas. Despite huge warning signs, people let them off the leash and they kill roe deer cubs and other wildlife.
And they all say their dog is well behaved and doesn't do such things.
> We have no idea whether your dogs are properly trained or not.
This is interesting to me because we have no such assurances about other humans either. But acting on the fear that a given human isn't adequately trained and restrained is labeled with every variant of ignorance.
Such are the ethical pitfalls that we fall into when one species decides to domesticate and selectively breed another species for thousands of years. The subjugation is baked in already, literally in their DNA.
> We have no idea whether your dogs are properly trained or not
I think the assumption is, at least from mine and others like me, is that if your dog is off-leash, you can handle your dog off-leash. The same if you bring friends to some social event, you wouldn't bring them if you can't handle them and they can behave in public. I'm not afraid they are gonna attack me, although sometimes humans do attack other humans, most of them are fine so no need to worry in general.
> but where I’m from we have a scourge of ignorant owners who are not in control of their dogs. They ruin it for everybody.
Yes, I agree, it's terrible when owners have no control over their dogs. But that's not relevant to the leash itself, that's relevant to the expertise of the owner. Dogs on leashes misbehave as well, and can easily (if wanted and the owner is a terrible one) unleash themselves by either raw power or the owner not paying attention.
> I think the assumption is, at least from mine and others like me, is that if your dog is off-leash, you can handle your dog off-leash.
Which may apply to 90% of off leash dogs. Unfortunately, the other 10% that have dogs that *cannot* be off leash, but do so anyway ruin it for you.
There are people that are afraid of dogs. They have no way of knowing, at a distance, whether your dogs will behave or run up to them. So when they see any dog off leash in a leash required area, they have to take a large detour to give the off leash dogs a wide enough berth.
If you’re in an area where leashes are required, and you have your dogs off leash (no matter how well trained they are) you are being extremely inconsiderate of the other people around you.
As a dog owner as well, I wish there were more acceptable off leash places in society for dogs, and I cherish the areas where off leash behavior is acceptable. But taking them off leash, when others have a fair expectation that they will be leashed is rude and inconsiderate.
Finally, in my personal experience the number of well trained off leash dogs (that can behave appropriately in a “leash required” setting), is nowhere near 90%. In fact, I would say the majority of off leash dogs I run across do not behave appropriately. It’s probably closer to 25% of the off leash dogs I run across that are trained well enough that they behave acceptably in on-leash settings
As a cyclist, I've had a fair share of "well trained" dogs chase me and nip at my ankles. It's scary and usually only ends after I stop, get off my bike and walk back towards the owner so they can regain control.
> Taking them off leash, when others have a fair expectation that they will be leashed is rude and inconsiderate.
> I've had a fair share of "well trained" dogs chase me and nip at my ankles
Not sure why you say "well trained", the owners have obviously not trained the dog and has no business being off the leash, they are not well trained by any definition and you won't see dogs like that without a leash here in Barcelona.
> > Taking them off leash, when others have a fair expectation that they will be leashed is rude and inconsiderate.
> This sums it up perfectly. Thank you!
So... If there is no expectation of having your dog on the leash, then it's not rude and inconsiderate? Makes me feel a bit better at least, as the expectation here where I live seems to be very different than where you folks live.
> Not sure why you say "well trained", the owners have obviously not trained the dog and has no business being off the leash, they are not well trained by any definition and you won't see dogs like that without a leash here in Barcelona.
> If there is no expectation of having your dog on the leash, then it's not rude and inconsiderate?
Yea, I would agree with that. If there’s a legal expectation, or shared social expectation that an area requires a leash, then it’s rude and inconsiderate to have a dog off leash in that area.
If no such expectation exists, then off leash dogs are much more acceptable.
> the expectation here where I live seems to be very different than where you folks live.
There’s not a single expectation where I live, it varies by the place that you are. In certain areas of the city, dogs are required to be on a leash, while in the rest of they city they are not required.
In most parks in the city, dogs are required to be on a leash, but there are certain parks where dogs are allowed off leash.
My expectations of people’s behavior are largely driven by those laws, as that seems like the best way that we have to create shared expectations about different spaces.
> There are people that are afraid of dogs. They have no way of knowing, at a distance, whether your dogs will behave or run up to them. So when they see any dog off leash in a leash required area, they have to take a large detour to give the off leash dogs a wide enough berth.
This is my sister, exactly. At age four she was chased by an off-leash Alsatian and to this day is nervous of any off-leash large dog
The legal responsibility angle of this all always leave my head spinning.
If you let your dog off leash in a place where it is illegal to do so, congratulations: you've just lost the lawsuit.
If anything remotely funny happens -- regardless of what -- the liability can and will fall on the dog-owner for their reckless behavior. The real sad part of this is when the dog gets put down for the stupid owner...but my point is the people who let their dogs off leash have also posted a big, red sign saying "I'm responsible for anything happening here" -- even though few of them seem aware of that fact. Liability only becomes a question again if there is another dog-owner with their dog off leash.
Dogs should be treated like guns and other weapons. If a person gets a fine or jail time for shooting someone, a dog owner should get the same if their dog bites someone. If my gun would be taken away if I rubbed it in someone's crotch, then a dog should be taken away if it sticks its snout in someone's crotch. Perhaps one would say "it's not the owner's fault, the dog makes it's own decisions", well that makes it worse. my gun doesn't aim and fire itself. So maybe dogs should be regulated even more than guns.
> if you bring friends to some social event, you wouldn't bring them if you can't handle them and they can behave in public. I'm not afraid they are gonna attack me
Maybe, but I'd still feel safer if they were properly leashed and muzzled.
Laws are about enforceability, not individual outcomes.
Your doing what you're doing stabilizes a culture where there can be no consequences for anyone in this domain, because there's no clear line of enforcement. What's a low-wage enforcement officer expected to do in this context you advocate, where people "mind their own dog's abilities" and only get fined when some clear violation occurs? Are they supposed to fine people only when they see dogs chasing birds, or scarring a fearful child, or jumping up on an elderly person, or any number of other things with unclear lines? No, you just outlaw dogs off-leash, and allow the $20/h enforcement officer to clearly execute their pro-social task. The anti-social behavior get fined.
To be fair, walking your dogs without a leash in the city of Barcelona is already illegal. You can walk past the police and they won't do anything though, unless your dog is not behaving, then they'll use the law to give you a fine for not having a leash.
So while it's setup like you say it is, in theory, what you think cannot happen is what happens in practice. Same with public drinking and other laws. The police usually look the other way unless you are abusing it somehow, being too drunk, loud or otherwise annoying. Sitting in the park with a bottle of wine is fine and won't end up with you getting a ticket, even though it's illegal. At worst they'll tell you to stop whatever you're doing, and if you follow their command, that's the end of the situation.
Maybe the big difference here between law officers in Spain (Barcelona at least) and wherever you're based, is how strict they actually enforce the laws. Here is maybe a bit laxer, which also fits in with the whole culture here, and it's represented in how law officers behave as well.
Yes, because we don’t have infinite enforcement resources we need to decide if we are going to prioritize type I errors or type II. Given the balance of harms minimizing type II errors (i.e. requiring leashes where they aren’t necessary) seems the better choice.
You’re in the minority - too many dog owners think their dogs are fine and when their dog runs dozens of yards away from their master to bound up to us th egg cheerfully call out, “It’s a friendly dog!” Then they go on their merry way and I have to attend to my 2 crying toddlers. Maybe they only kicked my kids’ faces but sometimes they knock them down. I grew up with dogs in the 20th century - mine could obey and do tricks but I still didn’t make assumptions and grabbed them if we were in a situation like that. I don’t live out in the middle of nowhere - we’re in one of the largest cities in the USA and it’s illegal but dog owners think it’s a suggestion the way speeders on the road often do!
Yes, if I was in the USA maybe I would be in the minority. But where I actually live (Barcelona, Spain) I'm not, as mentioned before. Countless people walk their dogs without leashes here, and no one bats an eye.
> too many dog owners think their dogs are fine and when their dog runs dozens of yards away from their master to bound up to us th egg cheerfully call out, “It’s a friendly dog!”
Sure that might be a friendly dog but in no way is that a well-behaved dog, it wouldn't run away yards away unless the owner explicitly calls out for them to behave that way. Living in ~16th or something biggest city in Europe, you wouldn't have your dog stray that far away from you, easily within a yard of yourself at all time, otherwise I wouldn't call them well-behaved.
So back to the original point: off-leash dogs that don't behave properly have inconsiderate owners, yes I agree with this. Are all owners who let their dogs be off-leash inconsiderate? No.
~ I've been bitten in the hand drawing blood by two different dogs (not mine).
~ My daughter had a large dog nipping her face while the owner laughed.
~ I have too different acquaintances that were mauled on their face pretty badly.
All these dogs had owners nearby.
I love dogs and have had one or more the majority of my life, but people are irresponsible and arrogant.
That's really bad and obviously badly behaved dogs you have interacted with. I hope in all cases they got fined properly for the disturbance and ill caused, and hopefully improved over time, although unlikely...
> people are irresponsible and arrogant
Agree! And it does harm that people are behaving that way, but that doesn't give me reason to limit people who are not irresponsible and arrogant. Yes, some things are dangerous to consume for example, and irresponsible people can make it worse for everyone by consuming those things, but I don't think we should outlaw those things just because of that.
I philosophically agree with you, but the reality on the ground on US trails is that many people (dog owners or not) do not observe rules or etiquette. Go on a hike near Seattle and you'll probably leave with a Drake song memorized from how many kids are blasting it on their Bluetooth speakers. The actual trail is sometimes indistinguishable from the switchback cuts people make. Even take some time looking at US centric comments on this site lately: even with respect to a global pandemic, people will vehemently put their own wants over the greater good of society or the environment. The only solution is heavy handed enforcement. It sucks but I don't see a better way.
Not a good analogy at all. You're comparing inanimate objects that people consume, entirely by choice, to an animal that can maim or kill others? Find a different rhetorical device, I'd say.
>introducing stiff penalties for owners of unleashed dogs who bite -- how about a fixed 10,000 dollar fine?
If such a law were ever to be passed, something tells me a lot of people with "well behaved" dogs would suddenly start to leash their dogs "just in case".
That's great, as it should be. However, the majority of dog owners I encounter are at the mercy of their dogs, they treat the dogs not as dogs but as humans and try to bargain with them. This is merely annoying when the dogs is a golden lab, but can be mortal when it is a "sweet" "rescue" pit.
You are right though, it doesn't matter if the dog is on a leash because people also get these 30ft (10m) leashes and all of a sudden, out of nowhere, someone's dog is trying to "just show affection" to a toddler.
So, the golden rule is not to get a dog if you can't be pack leader. A very bad proxy for a person being able to control a dog is the dog being on a "short leash"[1]. So, people go for that rule.
Then you get the 100 lb jogger (45 kg) who attaches a Doberman with a breakaway clip to their shorts.
I'm not the GP but I'd like to comment on this because it's an interesting question.
Some people are afraid of dogs. Others come from cultures where dogs are considered ritually unclean. And no stranger can verify just by a glance that your dogs will behave themselves.
To take the third point to its logical extreme, imagine a town where police wear street clothes and openly carry firearms. You, a visitor, cannot determine by observation alone that they are all highly trained officers of the law. You simply see people with firearms. That could be unsettling, despite the fact that the presence of those people actually makes you safer.
I suppose that if everyone is walking their dogs without a leash, it's not really an issue because the culture has adapted to that practice.
I have a friend whose pet dog killed one of his other pets, is known to growl at children, and to me seems genuinely dangerous. Friend insists that the dog is a good boy and wouldn’t ever hurt anything. Friend insists dog loves children.
Friend is an intelligent, gregarious, kind hearted tech worker. He’s also completely delusional and in denial about his dangerous, demonstrably violent pit bull.
Friend routinely takes dog off leash in places where that is not permitted.
This and even if they are behaving that can change anytime, especially in nature. This is coming from someone who just broke an elbow because of off leash dogs on a trail. Trail allowed bikes and dogs on leash. Dogs were on the side of the trail sniffing, caught wind of something else and immediately jumped in front of bike. I was going slow and watching them like a hawk. Dodged one and couldn’t the other. Owners were on a jog and literally ran off after asking if I was ok once. If the trail says keep dogs on leash , there might be a good reason.
there's a great hike just outside Salt Lake City that solves this problem by allowing bikes on even numbered days and off-leash dogs on odd numbered days
Indeed, if I do end up in a situation where it's required, I'll do it, no questions asked. But for day-to-day walks, it's not so I don't, together with the rest of almost everyone we meet with dogs on our daily walks.
I have a toddler and I absolutely hate people doing this. I don't know you nor your dog. Sometimes I go to the park and people assume we can read minds and let stranger dogs come close to us. Please leash your dog
> Every stereotype of the off-leash dog owner on display here.
The comment I responded to called me "extremely inconsiderate", "hostile" and "violent" while I'm neither of those things (well, "inconsiderate" when it comes to how I handle my dogs seems to be up for debate at least). Are those the stereotypes you mean are visible in my comment?
> Leash your dog. To do otherwise is selfish and rude.
Thank you for sharing your opinion but it does not help me understand WHY, which I why I made my initial comment in the first place. You have something to contribute, contribute. But re-iterating exactly the same piece of information as what I replied to without any sort of addition or effort does not help anyone in this discussion. If you want to explain why you feel that way, please do.
I wasn't but now I am. It doesn't seem like something we should subject HN to, so if that's what you're doing you should probably stop sooner rather than later.
To me the issue isn't generally having a dog off the leash, but specifically having a dog off the leash at a wildlife reserve where they may be running around disturbing the wildlife. It isn't a dog park.
Indeed, there are areas (such as some federal land, dog parks, etc.) that specifically do not require dogs to be leashed, by design and intent. People who want to avoid dogs should avoid those places, and people who want to walk dogs off-leash should favor them.
Why do you have to follow [law] if you don't cause a problem for others? Would you make the same reasonable question for driving double the speed limit, not wearing a seatbelt, or carrying a gun in public?
"How is it inconsiderate if I carry a gun in public? I've never shot or threatened anyone! If I met someone who asked me to put my gun away, I would obviously do so." :)
Societies work because we agree to give up a measure of our personal freedoms, even when it's sometimes a bit inconvenient for us.
Generally law officers here apply laws against civilians based on preventing harm to others. If you have a wine bottle in the park and a officer walks by, they most likely wouldn't do anything. If you're loud and obnoxious, they would do something as you're disturbing others.
Seemingly the police here are of the view that most dogs don't pose a threat to others and are not annoying when off leash, as I haven't been confronted when walking next to them with my leashed dog.
Carrying a gun would obviously not be OK here as it's strictly outlawed. If I went to the US, I would probably feel the same way that some feel against dogs here but regarding guns, so that's actually a good point, thank you.
This comment basically drips with a fundamental inability to see this situation from the other person's perspective. Even to see the most basic thing, which is that other people have no oracular powers with which to discern whether you or your dog are well-behaved.
> This comment basically drips with a fundamental inability to see this situation from the other person's perspective
Well... I mean yeah, that's why I asked for more information in order to understand the other persons perspective, what do you think this discussion is about? In case you missed it, here is the part I explicitly call out that I don't understand their perspective but I would like to, so please educate me:
> How is inconsiderate if the dogs themselves are behaving? Maybe there is something I'm missing, and I'd like to understand your point of view. I could understand you think it's inconsiderate if people don't have control on their dogs and they annoy others while the owners do nothing, then I agree with you. But just because of being off-leash? Not sure I understand that line of reasoning.
If you have something to contribute that can further my understanding, I'd be most appreciative.
> other people have no oracular powers with which to discern whether you or your dog are well-behaved.
Yeah, this is true but applies in so many things in life. New friend introduced by my other friend? Not sure they are well-behaved or not, but I'll default to that they won't murder me, but if they give signs that they might want to kill me, I'd stay away or contact authorities. I think in general society is adjusting well to the possibility of judging things as they come along, instead of painting broad strokes like "people with dogs off-leash are extremely inconsiderate", at least where I live, not sure how things look where you live.
The wast majority of dogs that aren't leashed should be. If I encounter your dogs I can't know if they are one of the handful out of a hundred who are totally safe to keep off leash, or not. I can also not know if they are mostly fine off leash but react badly to bicyclists, other dogs or whatever.
So when I encounter them I have to assume you are not a reponsible dog owner.
Dog attacks are common enough in the U.K. to be a topic you can subscribe to on the BBC news site. While it’s definitely pretty culturally acceptable to have a dog off leash there, I’m not so sure it should be, especially in places such as children’s parks or near livestock etc.
Strangely enough, most of those stories are about dogs attacking their own owners/families and seems to indicate the dogs were leashed in most stories.
Do we just downvote people now who contradict the majority’s opinion?
As far as I can say this adds to the discussion.
Someone literally said people who don’t have their dogs on leashes are prone to violent confrontations.
Then someone else retorted this is not the case for them and asked for elaboration to better understand their interlocutor’s point of view.
We should not be abusing downvote privilegies by discouraging viewpoints that we disagree with, when these viewpoints are relevant to the discussion. In the long run that will be harmful to ths community here and the next generation of hackers will go to different forums, or, worse, learn from our example.
Strange you're getting so downvoted. While I am a dog owner (and therefore may have a bias) I don't think you've said anything wrong or even controversial. I've seen a lot of US-based people who cannot fathom the idea of a well-behaved dog being completely fine off-leash, so maybe this is why?
I must say that in this sort of situation - an area near a nesting site - I absolutely agree a dog shouldn't be free to run around. But I imagine there are signs specifically warning people against doing that. There are areas here where I have to do the same, for example near areas where people hunt deer (a lot nearby) or where there are bears (only seen warnings in Slovakia). But outside of those areas, with an conscientious owner and an attentive, trained dog who listens to their owner - there's no reason not to unless it's someone who hasn't bothered training their dog.
I'm going to hazard a guess as to why the downvotes are happening: There's a silent majority out there who are not happy with the way dog owners behave, which is very often badly. Most of the time they have no real power to do anything about it, but it's occasionally visible in places like this with karma systems.
In my experience, most dog owners are like the user who started this thread. They do what they want, having their dog constantly off leash in areas where it's clearly not allowed, and then rationalize it to themselves with something like "well my dog's well behaved and would never hurt a fly!" It's incredibly inconsiderate to both the environment (dogs are constantly chasing and damaging wildlife, a lot of poop gets left behind as the owner is walking off in front and doesn't notice) and other people (many people don't like dogs, dogs are dangerous for bicyclists and small kids, and some people have smaller dogs who they don't want strange dogs interacting with), and indeed the badly behaved dog owner will see signs of this on a daily basis, but chooses to consciously ignore all of them by pretending none of it's happening.
Dog culture around the Bay Area where I am has reached peak absurd. With more dogs in SF now than kids, people treat their dogs like they would human children. Off leash dogs in on leash or even no dog areas is the norm. At least a few times a week I'll see an off leash dog to something bad to a person or another dog, and the owner pretend-chastise them with a, "ooohhhhh Fido, silly dog, don't do that" (but in a sweet tone so the dog is not actually being chastised) followed by a "he doesn't normally do that". You know of course that Fido does normally do that on a consistent basis, and the owner is pretending Fido doesn't because they really don't care.
It's frustrating to me, and probably frustrating to other people on here too. There's no real enforcement anywhere, so the only thing we can do is ask dog owners to put their animals back on leash, which will be ignored. It's like fighting entropy at this point, and if you're anything like me, you sort of wish nebulously that people would just be better.
I'm not sure what to say. I guess if people are upset about dogs in the Bay Area (or somewhere else) then that's up to owners in that area to fix? I have no idea about dogs or dog owners in the USA, and presumably neither does user "diggan" who has also been commenting and getting downvoted to oblivion, but who nevertheless I have a feeling is a responsible dog owner. The thing we took issue with was the idea that dogs should at all times in be on the leash. IMO that's quite irresponsible (many need exercise) and counterproductive (a dog who is rarely exercised will probably be hyperactive when taken out). To me it just sounds like a few people have had some experiences with bad dog owners, but instead of thinking "Wow that guy was an asshole" you're presuming "all dog owners are assholes" which is ... weird.
There are a lot of different dog cultures around the world and even within the US.
In cities that have a lot of people from all over the country and world you end up with a lot of culture clashes. People do things that in the context they grew up in are totally reasonable and normal, but from someone else’s perspective seems uncomfortable or even dangerous.
In theory municipal rules should harmonize, albeit with some people left unhappy, but it’s another American cultural quirk that some rules are widely ignored. But which ones is again a matter of geographic diversity.
It is totally counter to HN ethos to downvote a opinion you don’t agree with, and I’m disappointed others don’t give pause and ask themselves why they’re doing it first.
All the responses in this thread have been cordial and relevant, so it is disappointing to see some of them met with this kind of silent disapproval, which is reserved for non-sequitors, those acting in bad faith, or impolite speech.
I'm particularly confused because this comment of mine is downvoted despite me agreeing with the idea that dogs should be leashed in these situations. But I understand - people get annoyed and irritated, and really it's just meaningless internet numbers at stake so it doesn't matter :)
As someone in their 20s I’ve already come to terms with just how much wildlife I’ll never be able to see because previous generations decided to absolutely destroy the planet.
No one decided that. It feels good to divide the world into good guys and bad guys, but if that’s your mental model of history and older people (like me) you are going to make mistaken judgments over and over again.
What? Of course humans have decided to harm the environment. It happens every day and has happened for as long as humans have existed. I don't think his comment "divides the world into good guys and bad guys" -- it merely points out an abundantly obvious truth.
Clear-cutting, overfishing, fossil fuel extraction, emissions, etc didn't just happen on their own -- they all required a human decision.
Whether or not humans making these decisions realize that their actions will contribute to the irreparable harm of the environment is a moot point. The decisions are made and the harm is done. Even so, willful ignorance and indifference to the impact of ones actions are decisions too.
If we ever want to turn the tide on global environmental destruction, then it is imperative that we as a society not diminish individual responsibility for the impact of one's decisions and actions.
We've exploited nature to bootstrap us into the information age we currently exist in. I don't condemn the efforts past humans have made so I can live in a world with instant fresh water to wash myself and to drink, markets with food, sewer systems to manage waste, roads, electricity, medicine, etc.
We now have the tools humans have been dreaming of for millennia to make the world a better place. I personally think instead of looking backwards and blaming people for making mistakes, we should use the tools to look forward to accomplish the goals of the future; Human health, environmental health, agricultural sustainability, peace.
I point out that your generation is also destroying the planet.
You acknowledge that—-taking the position that we all are sinners to a greater or lesser extent.
However, since the contemporary Western religion is Protestantism without a Christ, you don’t even have any salvation to offer. Just endless flagellation of self and others over our sinful natures. We should all do good works, of course, but we are bound to fail. O fortuna!
Why not instead of hating humanity and spending your life impotently shaking your fist at our collective imperfections, look for systemic solutions that are compatible with human nature?
> I point out that your generation is also destroying the planet.
No, not quite. You stated "no one decided [to harm the environment]". My reply sought to explain how that is incorrect.
> You acknowledge that—-taking the position that we all are sinners to a greater or lesser extent.
Again, not quite. "We are all sinners" is very different from 'humans have made decisions to harm the environment for a long time'. Those two are different.
> However, since the contemporary Western religion is Protestantism without a Christ, you don’t even have any salvation to offer. Just endless flagellation of self and others over our sinful natures. We should all do good works, of course, but we are bound to fail. O fortuna!
Wow, where to begin...
> you don’t even have any salvation to offer.
I'm advocating a very simple proposition: preserving the environment. Whether you want to liken it to "salvation" is entirely up to you.
> We should all do good works, of course, but we are bound to fail.
What an awful assertion. I'd hardly agree that environmental protection and preservation is a lost cause.
> Why not instead of hating humanity
Again, false. I do not "hate" humanity.
> spending your life impotently shaking your fist at our collective imperfections,
I could be wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that because something is difficult and that the result might not be unachievable, that it's therefore not worth trying. Again, I completely disagree.
> look for systemic solutions that are compatible with human nature?
Absolutely! There are an innumerable number of ways that we can protect and preserve the environment. In this thread, I'm contributing in a tiny way by dispelling the notion that "no one decided [to harm the environment]". As I stated above: If we ever want to turn the tide on global environmental destruction, then it is imperative that we as a society not diminish individual responsibility for the impact of one's decisions and actions.
> In this thread, I'm contributing in a tiny way by dispelling the notion that "no one decided [to harm the environment]". As I stated above: If we ever want to turn the tide on global environmental destruction, then it is imperative that we as a society not diminish individual responsibility for the impact of one's decisions and actions.
On the contrary preaching at people to change their sinful ways will never work. In fact, it’s likely to be counterproductive. But self righteous sure does feel good.
If you really want to save the environment, and not just feel like a good person, invent ways to break the zero sum trade off curve between the environment and human flourishing in the short and medium term.
To play the advocate, I will state that this is a conversational thread, where people talk about things. So it's no surprise that you see someone talking about a problem and not inventing a solution where the selected medium supports only the former.
Invention is sometimes a lonely and quiet endeavor, conversation is much the antithesis.
As someone in their 20's you are also likely lamenting the lack of affordable housing. One way to address it is to build more housing which which disrupts wildlife.
Without affordable housing you might delay having children and getting married like I did. Wait too long and you might never be able to see your children or grandchildren because you won't have them.
Reframing it that way might reduce resentment and ameliorate this perpetual blame of the previous generations. You'll have to pick your poison just like previous generations did only to later be criticized regardless of which poison you chose.
It’s not the affordable housing advocates that are putting up houses at the edge of the wilderness that is disproportionately affecting wildlife. That’s the upper middle and the upper class that’s doing that.
Generally speaking, affordable housing advocates incidentally advocate for more efficient land use, because that’s one part of the strategy to build cheap places for people to live.
Funny how this is always the argument against affordable housing, and never the large detached single family dwellings in the far exurbs. Makes you wonder if the concerns are sincere…
Not having children at allor at least less of them is a better way to protect the environment and housing though. If we continue to grow our population as we are we're going to run out of natural resources and space to live sooner or later.
It'll cause some immediate societal issues like an unbalanced population pyramid just like the boomers did. But it'll be better in the long run.
The best way to address it is to restrict immigration, so that the demand isn't there in the first place.
For example the USA could end its refugee intake program (which Biden has increased by 50,000/year to 62,500) - which alone will bring in a Wyoming's worth of people over the next 9 years.
Thanks to inflation and skyrocketing tuition, etc, things are different for this generation. This isn't perpetually blaming each past generation; it's specifically blaming the boomer generation. Our "poisons" are home ownership being out of reach for a significant chunk of the population (therefore tossing money away instead of building wealth like previous generations), and our environment being destroyed with the help of our geriatric politicians. Let me just "reframe" that!
Agreed. No one's arguing you didn't get a shit deal. At least I hope no one is arguing that.
But that doesn't mean the previous generation got a better deal. When my Dad bought our first home the interest rate was over 10%. And how did he pay for college ? He had to fight in a war and then work at the military morgue. He never recovered from this.
I am not trying to win an argument here. It's human nature to focus one's own problems and assume others have it better. For the record, my dad would definitely preferred to have been born into your generation, as I would. Again that's not a counterargument but should at least help lessen some of the bitterness from these discussions.
Also not everyone had the luck to be growing up in rich western countries. My "boomer" parents grew up under communism, you know what they had at my age? Absolutely nothing. Definitely no wealth building to speak of, no amazing opportunities, good job existed if the government granted you any.....compared with them, my generation has it extremely good.
And then you go on the internet and read how the post WW2 generation fucked everyone over - like....in US, sure. In the former Soviet block? Not so much.
If I were to poop in someone's front yard, I might go to jail. Yet, people constantly encourage human-sized pooping in my front yard -- every single day -- without any consequence at all.
Why do dogs get away with behaviour that would be blatantly offensive if done by a person?
At least where I live, it is a bylaw offense to not scoop after pooping.
Not that it ever can be enforced, unless you happen to have your doggy do its business on the bylaw officer's front lawn, but it's a bylaw nonetheless.
Just to verify--I am not taking a stance on this and I could see going either way--the idea is then that I can poop on your front yard as long as I "scoop"?
Elegant Terns are considered 'Near Threatened' - so they are not at imminent risk of extinction. However, the wetland - Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve - where they live is home to other species that may not be so secure.
> I wouldn't discard a deliberated action it somebody wants to develop the area.
If we gradually lose all of the migration endpoints the species will eventually suffer.
I work at the Hawk Conservation Trust in the UK. We have a few White-headed vultures and this year two of them have successfully raised a chick (currently two months old and about to start flapping its little wings). A visitor asked me if it would be returned to the wild. I said 'no - it is part of the insurance policy for this species' and the conversation moved on.
What I didn't say was that returning it to the wild would be like throwing it into a shredder. These African birds are superbly good at spotting carrion. When poachers kill elephants and rhinos, the vultures start circling and unwittingly act as a signal to the wildlife rangers that poachers might be in the vicinity. So, after they have chain-sawed the horns / tusks off, the poachers poison the carcasses to kill the vultures so they won't give the game away at the next kill. The record is 500 vultures of various species killed as a result of one poaching event. The wild populations will not survive this relentless slaughter.
So, I'm afraid I have very little sympathy for people who are worried about their drone-flying rights. Sorry.
I guess if a bunch of human believe a 'drone crash' can scare off a huge sanctuary of birds, it's possible a bunch of birds might believe a drone crash is a something something.
Originally it was 1,500 eggs, then 2,000 then 3,000.
800 eggs abandoned is still a story, but if they told the truth of what they know, perhaps the real cause might be easier to see. I'd guess to was 3,000 birds original now it's 3000 eggs.
> Michael H. Horn, a professor emeritus of biology at California State University, Fullerton, said that although the loss of 1,500 eggs might not threaten the long-term health of the elegant tern, which has a worldwide population of about 100,000 to 150,000, the drone crash was still troubling.
not even humans. what humans don't understand is that when you protect ecosystems, i.e. the planet you protect your own species. We are part of a biological "balance" a change creates risks for us.
Could you please not be a jerk in HN comments or otherwise break the site guidelines? It's not the first time you've done this, unfortunately, and we're really trying for something different here.
It's most likely that the drone that crashed was similar in size to the type of bird that was spooked (Mavic Mini to Mavic Pro range; maybe a Phantom at most). Anyone flying a larger drone (Inspire and up) would have a serious license and familiarity with permits, therefore unlikely to be called "illegal".
I'm guessing it either fell after colliding with a bird or was flying low enough with sensors off and clipped the ground.
Thunderstorms have been happening with some predictability since before birds even evolved. A buzzing, hovering, and erratically moving clanking mechanical thing is extremely novel.
Which of those two would the birds have a genetically and socially built-in way to cope and survive through?
Thunderstorms are likely rare in this location. Most of coastal California only experiences such storms less than once a year, depending on when they begin nesting any rain at all may not be common, as typically they is little rain from April to October.
On dogs, training and leashes only matter a little. The problem is birds immediately identify a dog as a dangerous predator. They are far less bothered by humans.
Birds pay more attention that we might realize. They identify potential threats from much farther away that we do. This leads to them being disturbed even when the casual rule-breaking dog walker thinks "I'm not doing anything wrong."
I'm extremely surprised so many birds abandoned their nests permanently. I would have expected only the closest nests to be abandoned.
Some people rely on their drones to tell them when they are in a no-fly zone. Terrible idea. Once at Hayward Regional Shoreline, I had to tell a guy that he was potentially creating a problem. I told him the two locations where endangered species can be found and that he should avoid -- and also that he was definitely within the limits of Hayward Regional Airport. He was both contrite and horrified that his drone didn't tell him.
They other issue is boundary-pushing. Literally. Give people a space, and many people will act like selfish toddlers and push the boundaries. Sunnyvale Baylands allows drones and it's a great space for them. There is a clearly marked fence they must not go beyond. So of course people constantly violate the fence. The fence is to a marshland with endangered species. Drones can fail, and a drone that falls into the marsh is not retrievable and then what happens to the toxins in the battery?