Correction: The Feb. 3 story “Seeing Stan with one’s own eyes” should have credited Jerry Aronson for the photo of Stan Brakhage.
Dogs and open space
I want to voice my support for Pamela White’s “Uncensored” piece in response to the complaints about restricting dog access in the open space (“Why people growl about dogs on open space,” Feb 3). I think her points are spot on and wanted to add my own personal experiences.
My girlfriend and I are both runners, her being much more serious and running five to 20 miles most days. She enjoys running the hilly trails around Boulder and often encounters dogs. Leashed dogs rarely cause a problem, but dogs off leash will sometimes run at her and trip her up. She has been injured quite a few times with twisted ankles, bruises and scratches from getting knocked over by dogs.
If she asks the owner to please be mindful of their dog, they will often say the dog is just being playful. They don’t seem to consider the intrusiveness of the behavior. Some owners are so hostile that she has been yelled at and called a bitch for voicing her complaint.
The fact is that there are a lot of responsible dog owners in the Boulder area. I know several personally. Unfortunately, there are also quite a few irresponsible owners who allow their dogs to run around without consideration for the impact on wildlife and other trail users. I encourage the responsible owners who feel the new restrictions are unfair to more actively police the irresponsible owners who led to the change.
Tim Roth/via Internet
Poorly trained dogs and their rude irresponsible owners are undoubtedly a problem in Boulder. Pamela White’s recent Uncensored article enumerated the compelling reasons why many Boulderites want and deserve to have dogs banned from more Open Space and Mountain Park (OSMP) trails. However, Boulder’s OSMP trails are hardly the only zones where dog/ human conflicts abound.
This past summer my girlfriend and I were out enjoying an evening bike ride near Centennial Middle School. A group of three people, a man and two women (college students by the looks of them), were out walking a rambunctious golden retriever on a leash. We gave them a wide berth and continued on our way. A moment later I heard my girlfriend shout as her bike hit the ground. The dog had yanked the leash out of its owner’s hand and lunged up, slamming my girlfriend sideways into the asphalt. I quickly circled back to find her sitting down crying as she picked gravel out of bloody gashes in her elbow and knee.
The trio continued walking onwards with nothing more than a nonchalant “sorry” tossed over their shoulders. After helping my girlfriend up and checking her and her bike, I helped her to a grassy area so she could collect herself and see if she was able to finish ridseeing home. I then gave
the unperturbed dog walkers a loud piece of my mind. This was met with a
collective “What’s your problem, dude?” sort of look. Our interaction
ended there.
No concern was voiced, no further apology, nothing.
So
here’s my vote. After decades of hiking and having my crotch
snoutjammed, having my pants muddied by wet paws and noting the
ubiquitous trail-side plastic bags full of feces, I say let’s keep dogs
where they belong: in designated dog parks, in their owners’ back yards
and on tightly held leashes. And while I’m on the subject, let me add
one more sentiment to the many dog-friendly sayings, such as “Love me,
love my dog!” Sometimes I loathe with equal contempt dogs and their
owners, too. That’s just how it is.
Tim Gale/Boulder
I
have just read the news in Boulder Weekly, and I must say I am
disappointed. I have read both sides, and my opinion is that we cannot
keep trying to change things by implementing more and more restrictions.
It is like trying to cut something that somebody doesn’t want to see or
experience and it has never proved to do any good, like taking the
medicine just to try to get rid of the symptoms without knowing the
reason of the sickness. Only by wanting to see where the problem is
stemming from one can do appropriate changes, cures. Otherwise there is
always going to be somebody who doesn’t like something.
I
can say that I do not like annoying people with their annoying
attitudes on the trail, and then what? Who is going to put restraint on
that? Who is going to stop them from entering some of the trails? I like
to have at least one trail where I would not meet these kinds of
people. And believe me, these types of people are quite often out there.
So
how are we going to change this? Are we going to seclude at least one
trail where I would not meet loudly speaking people (that disturbs
nature) on the cell phones that I am forced to listen to and their
annoying conversation, people who are trying to catch your attention for
no matter what and only just because they are people and nobody can
stop them from going out to nature?
Well,
if my voice would count, I am suggesting that society should not be so
corrupt by having you pay for a green tag, and then letting you have it
only by watching the video online. I would suggest they use that money
properly and have some kind of evaluation of the dogs’ behavior before
they give the tag away. This way people with little puppies and dogs
that do not listen well would not have access to the green tag until
they actually teach their dogs how to listen. Unfortunately, I am afraid
that nobody would want to do this, because it actually makes people
learn and do something, and nowadays people are lazy. Whatever
organization is giving out those green tags is lazy, too, because it
would take some higher management to apply this rule. So they just take
the money and let the people do what they want to do with their dogs,
and then other people are angry and want to close the trails.
So,
how about put the restriction on the proper place by not giving out
green tags so easily before we will go ahead and restrict the hell out
of everything else? It is very easy to close the trails without wanting
to learn the proper way. Here in America everything is ruled by what is
the easiest way.
All one has to do is to pay, and they are allowed to have whatever they want — degree, position, green tag, on and on.
Again,
how about to pay for a green tag, prove that your dog listens, and then
let dogs loose, as any being “should” be. If people would not agree
with this and there are trails going to be closed for dog owners anyway,
I want to have some trails to be closed for annoying people, too! Just
to be fair. After all, aren’t we humans further away from nature than
dogs are?
Autumn Leigh Rae/via Internet
Pamela White is the voice of what?
The
typical white, upper middle-class American woman who pushes so many of
us to become ex-pats, running as far away from her kind as possible. Her
whining is the norm nowadays when you go for coffee, enter the
pharmacy, walk down the street or even while driving in your car. One
has to deal with these women who think their “children and elders” are
some sort of excuse for them to be annoying and give them a right to
voice brainwashed opinions and demand that the rest of us listen.
Anytime
I go for a hike with my dog, who follows all the rules of the ‘Green
Tag’ and who doesn’t have any interest in these types of people, their
children, elders or even their dogs, I find myself being annoyed by many
people overreacting and playing volunteer ranger. They are trying to
fulfill a need to prove to the world that they are somehow important and
needed.
And I must
say I am very bothered when I go for a hike and have to overhear their
loud voices, penetrating my privacy more than a dog jumping in my
crotch. This I consider a bigger poo than the one on the ground. It is a
mental pollution. The fact that Pamela was allowed to be published
doesn’t leave me with much hope.
Overall,
I would like to say that a dog owner pays quite a bit of money in this
county for owning just one dog. If we are to pay these annual fees and
for green tags then I would like to know where that money is going. Does
it make any sense to own a dog, to pay so much for it to exist with you
and then to be restricted from so many angles — mostly just to take
them into the nature when they are animals!
This
is becoming so ridiculous. I wonder how so many states in the EU can
live without these absurd rules and complaints and still be able to
enjoy the mountains and nature. Somehow they know how to coexist, and
here it is all about castration, fees, control and whining. I would
advise Pamela to look into her own life and change her own behavior
rather than preaching and trying to restrict others.
Darsej K. Rae/via Internet
Whining about poor kids (Re:
“Let them eat nothing,” In Case You Missed It,” Feb. 3.) You complain
that the state government is failing in their responsibility to feed
poor children: “… poor families will have to pay 30 cents per meal for
food they have been getting for free.”
Here’s
a news flash: Nothing is free! It is the taxpayers paying for that
“free” food. You think that government is the answer to everything and
they should be able to take as much as they want from those who provide
and give it away to those who do not.
How about you stand on your hind legs for once in your life and do something besides whining and sniveling?
Why
don’t you go to your local school and donate a few bucks to the “free”
breakfast program? Do you smoke? If you stopped a pack-a-day habit you
would have about $40 a week you could donate to your local school. That
would feed 133 kids every week. There are other ways you could lead by
example also — too many to list. I’m sure they escape you.
Government
and taxes are not the solution. They are the problem. You exacerbate
the problem because you sit back, watch, snivel and whine and do
nothing, while espousing the everexpanding reach of government.
Pounding
a keyboard writing diatribes on the failings of everyone but yourself
will not feed anyone. It is time to grow up, take the bull by the horns,
and finally actually do something yourself instead of directing
everyone else to do it for you. What a concept, huh?
Jim Peel/Longmont
A Jew aids Egyptian uprising I really hope those of us paying attention to the crisis
in Egypt did not miss a delicious moment of at least one absolutely
incredible irony. This was demonstrated quite profoundly in my book when
two Egyptian Arabs appeared on camera with a sign of thank-you in
Arabic and the word ‘Facebook’ in English, thanking Facebook for being
so essential to their revolution. And of course Facebook’s founder is
the young Jewish man, Mark Zuckerberg.
An
American Jew (not to be confused with an Israeli or Israeli soldier) is
not only apparently helping to liberate the masses in modern-day Egypt,
but perhaps shaking up all of the other military regimes and
dictatorships in all of the Arab world, as well. Absolutely incredible.
I
think it also probably speaks to a definite American greatness in that
we continue to construct, secure and support a unique creative and
intellectual atmosphere that fosters, nurtures, motivates and I’d say
even protects those like Zuckerberg, Jobs, whomever. Yeah, any old way
you look at it this is one helluva country, mon, and I think I’m pretty
glad Dad immigrated here from Barbados. Amen.
Grant D. Cyrus/Boulder
[Boulder Weekly] welcomes
your e-mail correspondence. Letters must not exceed 400 words and
should include your name, address and telephone number for verification.
Addresses will not be published. We do not publish anonymous letters or
those signed with pseudonyms. Letters become the property of Boulder
Weekly and will be published on our website. Send letters to: [email protected]. Look for Boulder Weekly on the World Wide Web at: www.boulderweekly. com.
