Monday, August 28, 2006

Reply from Ted Kerasote

I sent an e-mail to Ted Kerasote last night with a link to my blog and received this very throughtful reply today:

Dear Cal:

Thanks for taking the time to write. The points your bring up in your letter are important ones and need addressing. Over the last year, as part of the research for my book, I visited New York City twice and did walking tours through Central Park and Prospect Park. I didn't notice dogs behaving in the ways you mention, but that's the problem with being a visitor--one gets a narrow snapshot. I wish I had been acquainted with your work then.

What came to mind, though, as I read your letter is that the issue you raise is one of enforcement--not only park personnel and police taking the lead but also dog owners themselves. Dogs learn pretty quickly what's permitted and what's not from their people. The village I live in, for instance, is surrounded by wilderness and has lots of wildlife going through it--bison, mule deer, moose, coyotes, bears, wolves. A hundred or so people live here and thirty or so dogs. The dogs live unleashed and yet don't chase wildlife. Kelly is also in Grand Teton National Park, which doesn't permit dogs, even if they're leashed, in the backcountry. In three decades of hiking through the park, I have almost never seen this regulation ignored, though this place has a large dog-owning population and is also visited by three million visitors each year, some of whom also bring their dogs. This strict observation of the park rule on no dogs in the backcountry brings up the question of why dog owners in NYC don't similarly observe the rules. I don't know, but it would be worth trying to answer.

Two of the people with whom I spoke while doing my research are Robert Marino, president of NYCDOG (ramnyc2000@yahoo.com) and Mary McInerney, head of FIDO (fidobrooklyn@att.net). I've fowarded your letter to both of them, and perhaps working with their groups, whose members don't want to lose their off-leash privileges, might bring some solution to the problems you raise.

Sincerely,
Ted

Ted Kerasote

Sunday, August 27, 2006

"You need to allow us to exercise hunting dogs in crowded nineteenth-century parks"

The essay below is from the Op-ed pages of the NY Times today. It was written by Ted Kerasote, a nature writer who lives in Wyoming. Even though he is way out there in the Wyoming wilderness he has one characterisitc that many New Yorker's may find reassuring: chutzpah.

First, let me disabuse Mr. Kerasote of the notion that at preciesly 9 am leashes are whipped out and placed on dogs and dogs remain on leashes until the 9 pm witching hour when they are removed. This just ain't so. Dogs run around off leash throughout the day in all city parks. The "Forever Wild" areas are particularly favored by unleashed dog walkers. Why? Because enforcement in these areas is non-existent. I don't mean virtually "non-existent," or almost "non-existent," I mean there are no enforcement officers in these areas ever.

Clearly Mr. Kerasote does not spend a lot of time in our city's parks because he completely ignores the damage done by unleashed dogs in favor of the "dog bite" issue. Certainly there are many people who use the parks (myself included) who are afraid of being bitten by dogs off the leash but that is only one small part of the equation. In a 1998 article in New York Magazine, Tony Hendra noted:
"Just to repair dog damage in the relatively small Riverside Park last year cost almost $100,000 (on top of regular restoration and maintenance); the citywide estimate is at least half a million. Yet we all foot the bill. Dog-license money supports the licensing agency itself; dog tickets go into the city’s general coffer. Rover’s freedom isn’t free."
My own favorite spot, the Wildflower Meadow, despite being completely enclosed by a fence, still gets torn-up by unleashed dogs. In fact, dog owners find the fenced-in area a convenient place to let their dogs run free without fear of them running away. The gardeners have put numerous signs up on the fencing but there are some dog owners who just can't read or choose to ignore the signs.

And what about dog owners? Most dog owners abide by the leash laws but many are not all that enlightened. Why else would we see such an explosion of large, "working breeds" in Central Park. Don't these people understand that these breeds need lots of outdoor space? Or maybe they understand this quite well. Tony Hendra, in the same New York Magazine article, quotes the Parks Commissioner as saying:
"What is strikingly new, says Benepe, is the size of the breeds people are buying. For many decades, the typical New York dog tended to be a handbag baby -- Pekingese, Maltese, Yorkie, Pomeranian, etc. -- no doubt because rules against pets in apartments were pervasive and strict, and the little fellas were easier to smuggle in and out.

Now, says Benepe, he and his staff are seeing bigger and bigger dogs coming into the parks: the obvious retrievers, German shepherds, St. Bernards, Rottweilers, huskies, and Labs, but also Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Irish wolfhounds, Great Danes. Several of these appear on the American Kennel Club’s top ten breeds of last year (the top two are Labs and Rotts). The Big Dog syndrome can be seen as an invasion of suburbiana into the city’s culture -- the priorities of Westport, White Plains, and Saddle River abroad in Central Park. Benepe, however, believes they’re “a fashion statement.”
While dog bites may not be a major reason to enforce the leash law, what about the damage to plants? What about the dog feces everywhere? What about animal and bird habitat destruction? These are conveniently ignored in Mr. Kerasote's piece. And no wonder, he lives in Wyoming and has little need to visit an urban park for his "wild" experiences.

For many New Yorkers (myself included) the city's parks afford an opportunity to enjoy nature in an urban environment. That enjoyment is severely curtailed when I encounter 15-20 dogs (as happened last Thursday morning) running off the leash in an area that is suppose to be "Forever Wild". The "Forever Wild" designation has become meaningless since leash laws are not enforced in these areas.

I do not agree with Mr. Kerasote that dogs have made our parks "safer." Safer for whom? We have only substituted one problem for another. Until the city starts to agressively enforce the leash law the problem will continue.


August 27, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor

Mad Dogs

Kelly, Wyo.

THIS week, Judge Peter Kelly of the New York State Supreme Court may incarcerate 1.4 million New Yorkers. Their crime? Being dogs.

The Juniper Park Civic Association in Queens is taking the city to court over its 1959 leash law, which requires dogs in public places to be restrained by a leash of no more than six feet. In recent years, the law hasn’t been fully enforced. Instead, city park administrators have accommodated the recreational needs of dogs and their owners by instituting “courtesy hours,” usually between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m., during which dogs, under the voice command of humans, can be off-leash in designated areas of the parks. The crown jewel of the courtesy-hour system is Brooklyn’s Prospect Park, where one can see dozens of dogs frolicking on weekday mornings and several hundred on the weekend.

But with 1.4 million dogs in the city, someone in some park at some time will be bitten, just as someone will be struck by a softball, hit by a cyclist or run over by a car. The association has argued that the public must be protected from these occasional bites by restraining dogs at all times. Their reasoning is hardly unique. Across America, more and more urban and suburban communities have instituted leash laws, not only to protect the public against dog bites, but also to protect against lawsuits.

The upshot is that dogs lead ever more incarcerated lives at the end of a very short lead, and dog owners don’t get to play with them in the way dogs and people have interacted for thousands of years. This loss might be viewed as one of the tradeoffs that comes with living in an urbanized world — if, that is, leash laws actually worked as intended.

But after nearly 50 years of watching them in operation, we can say that they’ve brought about the opposite of what we’ve hoped: dogs that are constantly leashed aren’t as well socialized as dogs that get to meet other dogs off-leash; they display more behavioral problems; and they’re often more aggressive. These are the very sorts of dogs that, spending their lives away from their own kind — often in a city apartment or suburban yard — bark their heads off at passers-by, make the mailman’s life hell and act aggressively toward other dogs and people.

Yet, proponents of strong leash laws have a point: 4.7 million dog bites were reported by the Centers for Disease Control in 1994. However, the C.D.C. and its Canadian counterpart also note that the majority of these dog bites — 75 percent in the United States and 65 percent in Canada — didn’t happen to pedestrians who encountered an off-leash dog in a public place. Rather, most dog bites occurred within the home to a family member who knew the dog. In fact, only 1.1 percent of all dog bites surveyed in Canada occurred in public parks or sports and recreation areas. Data on emergency room visits in the United States also puts the danger of dog bites into perspective. Only 1.3 percent of all people admitted to emergency rooms in the United States are treated for dog bites. The chances of being bitten by a dog are about the same as being poisoned.

The chances of being bitten by an urban dog are even lower. Their caretakers, being city people and not so wedded to automobiles, walk, and when they walk they take their dogs with them. If they have access to parks that allow off-leash recreation, their dogs run and play with other dogs, burning off pent-up energy. In addition, both person and dog get what many of us want nearly every day: access to some green space, safety from cars, exercise and conversation with our own kind.

New York’s dog owners and their dogs deserve these basics, and not simply because the dog owners pay taxes that support the parks. The benefits of off-leash recreation have spread far beyond dogs and their owners. Parks that were once hangouts for criminals have been reclaimed for the non-dog-owning public, in part, by the presence of so many law-abiding citizens walking their dogs at all hours and in bad weather.

Sending the city’s dogs back to leash jail won’t make the parks any safer. The leash law and off-leash courtesy hours have worked synergistically to control dogs on crowded streets while allowing them and their owners to enjoy a small portion of the city’s green space. Both should be kept.

Ted Kerasote is the author of the forthcoming “Merle’s Door: How Dogs Might Live if They Were Free.”

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Petition to Enforce the Leash Law


To: NYC Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe

According to official statements posted on the NYC Parks Department Web site, The City of New York enforces the leash law for several reasons.

"First, unleashed dogs pose potential danger to people and to other dogs. Many park users, horses, park wildlife and leashed dogs have been attacked and bitten by unleashed dogs.

Second, many park visitors are frightened by dogs and may find unleashed dogs to be intimidating or annoying.

Third, unleashed dogs are more likely to leave behind waste that is not picked up by their owners; canine waste is a known source of several pernicious zoonotic diseases.

Finally, unleashed dogs destroy lawns and flower beds: areas used as informal 'dog runs' have been severely damaged by the combination of wear and uric acid, a known killer of plant life."

As Parks Commissioner, you have been entrusted with enforcing the Public Health Code, yet are promoting an unwritten 'policy' of allowing pet owners to let their dogs off of their leashes between the hours of 9pm to 9am. A dog is just as likely to attack at 8:50am as it is at 9:10am, therefore these off-leash hours conflict with basic common sense and unnecessarily endanger park users.

We respectfully ask that you refrain from encouraging dog owners to break the law in order to protect the health and safety of city residents and visitors.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Capitalization of Bird Names

I had a disagreement with my editor over the capitalization of bird names. I felt they should be capitalized to eliminate confusion. For example, there are blue jays and Blue Jays. This is also the position taken by the ABA in their most recent styleguide: "Capitalize the standard English species names of birds but not the common names for groups of birds." The ABA also says that, when using hyphenated names (Eastern Screech-owl) the word after the hypen should not be capitalzied.

This is the tack I took in my book, "Birds of Central Park." Other authors take the opposite tack, mainly I suspect because editors don't like all those capitals on a page--they think it makes the page more difficult to read. Marie Winn, in her book "Red-Tails in Love" went in the other direction, using lower case on all bird names, as did Richard Rhodes in his biography of John James Audubon.

The National Audubon Society believes bird names should be capitalized but they add a new twist--they want you to capitalize the second word in a compound word.

This from the Audubon Web site:

Close scrutiny of birds shows that there are large and small differences between them. Scientists have arranged all living things, including birds, in a system that indicates how they are related and the order in which they evolved. There are hierarchies of resemblances and differences. One of the liveliest aspects of ornithology is the ongoing research that tries to ferret out the true relationships of groups of birds and whether certain forms should be considered distinct species or only subspecies. The system we use today to name all plants and animals was developed by a Swedish naturalist named Carolus Linnaeus over 200 years ago. He realized that common or colloquial names were unreliable for purposes of permanent classification. Even today the word "robin" indicates one bird to an Englishman and a different species to an American.

Common names often cause confusion. That is why, back in 1758, Linnaeus gave each bird a name made up of two words, usually derived from Latin or Greek. The first word is the name of the genus, or group of closely related species, and the second word is the particular species. The genus and species are combined to form the scientific name. Each creature in the animal world has a unique scientific name shared by no other. That is why, in the list posted on the Audubon Web site, we included all of the bird's scientific names. Whenever in doubt check the scientific name.

The English name of each of our birds is also given in the list. There are rules governing the capitalization and hyphenation of birds' names. No one who just knows birds casually is expected to either remember or figure out unaided how birds' names are correctly written in English. Therefore, you can always get them right by consulting the list.

It might be helpful to go over a few of the general rules of written bird names. When writing your own name you always capitalize your first and last names, e.g., Sam Spade or Lucy Brown. When writing the English name of a bird species, you should always capitalize its first and last names, e.g., Scarlet Tanager or Winter Wren. This avoids confusion with other modifiers in the sentence. For example, "the secretive, tiny, Black Rail..." If you are referring to unspecified birds use lower case letters, e.g., "those herons over there," or "that sparrow on the ground." If a species has a three-word unhyphenated name, all three words are capitalized. For example, "the graceful American White Pelican..." Many birds have compound or hyphenated "first" or "middle" names. Only the first letter of the compound name is capitalized: Red-throated Loon, or Long-billed Curlew. However, if a bird has a compound "last" name, then both parts of the compound name are capitalized: Eastern Screech-Owl or American Golden-Plover.

To assure accuracy we will be updating the posted list whenever the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) Checklist Committee issues supplements announcing recent name changes. The Web address is: http://www.audubon.org/bird/na-bird.html.

"Lawrence's" Warbler in the Wildflower Meadow

A rare and somewhat cooperative "Lawrence's" Warbler has been hanging around the Wildflower Meadow since last Friday or Saturday. I have photographed it over several days but it wasn't until this morning that I got a couple of nice shots.

This bird is a hybrid of the Golden-winged and Blue-winged Warbler. According to the Cornell Web site:

Where their ranges overlap, you may find a "Brewster's Warbler" or the lesser-known "Lawrence's Warbler," which are hybrids resulting from a pairing between Golden- and Blue-winged warblers. A great deal of variation exists in these hybrids reflecting the interactions between dominant and recessive genes. The white underparts of a golden-winged and the reduced facial pattern or black eye-line of a blue-winged are dominant traits, whereas the yellow underparts of the golden-winged and the broad facial pattern showing black ear and throat
patches are recessive traits. "Brewster's Warblers" exhibit the dominant traits, and "Lawrence's Warblers" exhibit the recessive traits. Just as people with the recessive trait of red hair are relatively uncommon, the comparative rarity of the "Lawrence's Warbler" is the result of a naturally rare combination of recessive genes. See Peterson's Field Guide to Warblers by Dunn and Garrett for more details.


These genes interact in ways we don't yet fully understand. During GOWAP's Spring 2000 field season, participants spotted several birds with unusual plumage near Upstate New York's Cayuga Lake basin. One had the overall appearance of a Blue-winged Warbler but with a ragged black throat-patch. A similar bird had its otherwise yellow throat covered with large black spots. These rare plumage types do not fit any field guide descriptions. John Confer, associate professor of biology at Ithaca College, says these plumage types suggest there may be more than two pairs of genes involved in determining plumage variations between Blue-winged and Golden-winged warblers. Studying these unusual hybrids may help us understand the genetic basis of the hybridization between these two species. And because these birds sing hybrid songs, we may be able to explore the role of heredity in the birds' song formation.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Photographers and Birders

I just love this response from Phil Jeffrey to a cranky birder who thought photographer's were getting too close to the shorebirds at Jamaica Bay. I have often thought that, if birder's had to take photos of the birds the observed, they would become much better birders.

I had to crawl about 50 yards on my stomach to get close enough to this Marbled Godwit to snap its photo.

Here is a link to Phil's excellent Web site.

Here is what Phil has to say...


Re: mud.

The north end of the East Pond at Jamaica Bay is notoriously dangerous for soft mud. Do not even think about walking across the very northern end of it. A lot of people have sunk a long way in the mud around there. Stick to the dry ground on both sides, and assume that the ground is almost invariably more treacherous than it looks.

Re: the usual thing about getting close to shorebirds

While I agree with many of Richard Guthrie's sentiments, I have the following to observe:

Jamaica Bay tends to be one of the traditional areas where birders and bird photographers get in each other's way, and as such we might as well hash it out on this list. Consider it open season on this topic, but let's try and keep it below the level of a bona fide flame war.

I do both, of course (birds and bird photography).

What bird photographers do on the East Pond is get down on the mud or sand and crawl towards shorebirds, generally. We tend to get fairly close. The only reason we are able to get fairly close is that we pay attention to how the birds react to our presence. While there's always a small proportion of dumb photographers that don't get it, the vast majority of us understand the birds sensitivity to approach better than probably the majority of birders.

If we don't, then we don't get a photo. Most of us understand quite well that as long as you keep still and quiet and low the birds will not perceive you as much of a threat. It might be hard to explain otherwise why I can get Least Sandpipers to come within 10 feet of me on a regular basis. I'm not even taking photographs at that point - I'm just watching them. That having been said if you are NOT willing to get low, be patient, and be respectful of the birds (including at the point when you leave) then you should't be doing it. If you attempt to *walk* up to a shorebird, it will flush. This is bad for you and it is bad for the bird and if it is an interesting shorebird it's VERY bad for anyone else trying to find it.

A classical experience at Jamaica Bay is to lay there in the mud in the early morning, and then the birders start coming in, and then the shorebirds start flushing more. They start flushing more because frankly the birders don't care very much about flushing Least Sandpipers and Semipalmated Sandpipers, in the course of walking the shore of the East Pond looking for Wilson's Phalaropes and Marbled Godwits. Numerous times I've been doing slow and careful approaches on something mundane like a nice looking juvenile.

Semipalmated Sandpiper and a few birders will walk behind me and flush them. I'm reasonably sure that they pay little attention to the fact that they've just flushed them - you would get a lot of peer disapproval if you flushed a Wilson's Phalarope or a Baird's Sandpiper or a Marbled Godwit, but I find it hard to believe anyone will take you to task for flushing a Semi. Assume, however that Semi's experience about as much stress as a Baird's under the same conditions, even if the former are an abundant species and the latter borderline rare.

Birders flush, and therefore stress, more shorebirds at Jamaica Bay than bird photographers, perhaps by an order of magnitude or more - they walk around the shore of the East Pond in search of something novel up at the Raunt and beyond and the flocks of shorebirds up along the shoreline flush back and forth as they do so - waste a couple of hours planted at the south end of the East Pond and just see what I mean. It would be nice, for once, if the non-photographer birders were even vaguely aware of that.

I'm not sure how to put the terrorization by Peregrines and the repetitive flushing by humans on the same scale. They flush because they are nervous, but you rarely see a peep that's flushed by a birder exhibit the same level of terror that it shows when there's a Peregrine cruising over the pond.

Phil Jeffrey



John Bull Passes

New York Times
August 15, 2006

John L. Bull, 92, an Ornithologist, Dies

John L. Bull, a largely self-taught ornithologist and educator whose definitive guidebooks to New York State birds led a generation of birders into the woods, died on Friday in Queens. He was 92.

Mr. Bull’s death was confirmed by his family.

A research assistant at the American Museum of Natural History, Mr. Bull led popular birding tours of Long Island and Central Park in the 1960’s and 70’s and meticulously kept track of the species and the state of their habitat.

In 1964, he wrote a book, “Birds of the New York Area,” intended for would-be birders living in the suburbs of New Jersey, Long Island and Connecticut and for those in Manhattan itself, a prime birding destination. It covered the mourning doves of Central Park to the horned grebes off Montauk Point.

Mr. Bull later expanded his reach and wrote about all of the 410 bird species that had been recorded throughout New York State. That book, “Birds of New York State,” which was published in 1974, was the first exhaustive survey of the subject in 60 years. Another researcher, E.H. Eaton, had recorded only 366 bird species in 1914.

In Mr. Bull’s book, he noted the new or increased counts of species usually found at more southerly latitudes — like the snowy egret — and suggested that a milder climate might be at work in changing migration patterns.

Joel L. Cracraft, curator in charge of the ornithology department at the American Museum of Natural History, said the guidebook was “a first-rate state bird book.”

“At the time,” Dr. Cracraft said, “there was not a high-quality and professional account of the great diversity of New York’s species and their distributions.”

He continued, “John Bull did not want to take an anecdotal approach.”

With binoculars in hand in the Ramble in Central Park, which is under one of the main flyways of migrating birds, and in countless spots in Queens and Nassau Counties, Mr. Bull quietly made his observations.

In an interview in The New York Times in Feb. 6, 1972, he lamented, “as roads and homes and stores continue to be built, the number of birding spots declines in proportion.” Yet he remained optimistic, adding, “But there is nothing like getting out on a crisp morning with a destination, or a dozen destinations, in mind.”

In 1977, Mr. Bull and John Farrand Jr. used color photographs to illustrate their book “National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds: Eastern Region.” Dr. Cracraft said the book was a departure from past guidebooks, which had heavily depended on drawings and paintings to make distinctions among species.

John Lewis Bull was born in Manhattan on Feb. 28, 1914. He identified a red-headed woodpecker at age 11, and the woodpecker remained his favorite bird.

He joined the American Museum of Natural History in 1962 and officially retired as a field associate in 1983. But he continued to lead birding tours as far away as Egypt, South Africa and the Galápagos Islands.

Mr. Bull is survived by his wife, Edith, of Far Rockaway, Queens; his daughter, Doris Kraus, a marine biologist and writer, of Miami; and by three grandchildren.

Mr. Bull was often accompanied by his wife, an educator at the museum, on birding journeys. In 1989, the couple collaborated on a book, “Birds of North America: Western Region: A Quick Identification Guide for All Bird-Watchers.”

Remarking on the mourning doves that he spotted in Central Park, Mr. Bull observed: “They are the most monogamous birds I’ve ever watched. They always travel in pairs.”

Monday, August 14, 2006

I like dogs, I really do... it's the dog owners....

When I was young my family always had a dog. I like dogs, I really do. I just don't like them running around off the leash in Central Park, defecating and urinating wherever they choose while destroying valuable habitat.

My attitude can best be summed-up by Tony Hendra's New York Magazine article that was published in 1998. A bit of it is below. The whole article can be read here.

In one sense, this is quite literally a turf battle. Meadowland and lawns make up only a small fraction of the park system’s 27,000 acres. Grass is therefore at a high premium; but it is grassland that dog owners want for their animals. Other than team sports (which are restricted to specific areas), no casual use of our common space destroys turf like unleashed dogs. That happy tumbleweed of gamboling fur that so delights the New York canophile of a dewy morn conceals myriad claws ripping the grass out by the roots; this is particularly the case when the grass is dormant or wet.

And when Max or Princess or Sugarpie pauses for a quick tinkle or dump, the exhausted blades and the soil beneath them are clobbered yet again and, less retrievably, poisoned by their ultra-acidic waste. The costs here can be significant. Example: It took $17 million to restore turf in the Great Lawn. Just to repair dog damage in the relatively small Riverside Park last year cost almost $100,000 (on top of regular restoration and maintenance); the citywide estimate is at least half a million. Yet we all foot the bill. Dog-license money supports the licensing agency itself; dog tickets go into the city’s general coffer. Rover’s freedom isn’t free.

The problem isn’t just cosmetic. Dogless people -- bike owner, skate owner, or mere kid owner -- quickly learn to dread the honeyed assertion “It’s okay! He’s really friendly . . .” Friendly doesn’t quite cover the genome of a pony-size wolf-hound with the dentition of a teenage alligator. Flesh will be bitten, bones broken, picnic food stolen, small bodies exposed to ringworm, hookworm, and strep throat from slobbery tongues. A variant -- Rover Semi-Unleashed -- is the widespread use of the Flexi-leash, a tripwire that allows Rover’s owner to be anywhere up to a kilometer away from Rover. (If you square its length and multiply it by ?, you’ll get the acreage to which he/she believes he/she holds current title.) The reality here is not the cheery apology he/she yells as you crash to the ground; the booby-trap expresses, as so much else in our urban habits, hostility. Rover Semi-Unleashed is a weapon.

A subset of dog-as-weapon: dog-as-deterrent. Almost 40 percent of dog owners buy dogs, big dogs, because of fear of crime. At home, these animals may provide security; outside, off-leash, they can be a deadly menace. Parks officials say attacks by big dogs on smaller dogs are multiplying, but fast-moving dogs (and owners) are rarely apprehended.

The least admitted, most antisocial motive for letting Rover off the leash is that you won’t “notice” when Rover takes a dump. The preferred M.O. is to maintain (a) a minimum 50-yard lead on Rover and (b) an air of intense distraction, as if you’re utterly swept away by the Symphonie Pathetique of your inner life. You will soon develop the uncanny ability to turn as soon as the turds have been deposited, and to whistle irritably for your pet, feigning ignorance of his whereabouts.

None of these nuisances are altogether new. In some form, they’ve always existed in a densely packed, vertically organized city. But the harshness of the discourse is alarmingly new. Among militant canophiles, Holocaust imagery is rampant and by no means confined to the West Side. PEP (Park Enforcement Patrol) officers are routinely heckled when enforcing the laws as “Gestapo,” “Nazis,” and “Brownshirts” (actually, their shirts are green, and they’re unarmed). Charles McKinney, the administrator of Riverside Park, is referred to in flyers as “a dictator.”

One somewhat confused canophile, enraged by the “storm trooper” tactics of the PEP officers arresting her, gave her name as Eva Braun. Carolyn Dolgenos, who was arrested two years ago by PEP officers in Central Park during a celebrated fracas over her unleashed bichons frises, compared herself, according to the Times, to “Jews in the concentration camps.” She also likened her arrest to that of “blacks in the South,” an interesting take given that both the arresting officers were black and Ms. Dolgenos is a countess (which is to say she’s married to a count). Racism is sometimes quite overt: A West Side flyer giving tips on how to deal with PEP officers, a large number of whom are black or Hispanic, sneered, “Remember: it takes an average of 30 minutes to write a summons. Spelling is hard for them.”

Then there are the obscenities. Many letters received by Parks from people who have been harassed by unleashed dogs cite foul language on the part of their owners. Laura Meyer, dog lover and chair of the Parks Committee of Community Board No. 8, which serves the Upper East Side, says of Carl Schurz Park, “You ask people to pick up after their dog and they shout obscenities at you.” Big Dog and Tourette’s syndromes appear to be clinically linked.

Passionate dog lovers like to think of themselves as gentle, genial, outdoorsy folks made even more gentle and genial by the love of a good dog. But let that love or its object be challenged and they adopt a snarling, bared-teeth defensive mode just this side of actual canine behavior. (Indeed, on several occasions, PEP officers have been bitten by dog lovers in the course of making arrests.)

Call it Rover Rage.

Dog Leash Signs in Loch and Ravine

Following is a reply to an e-mail I sent to Regina Alvarez about the missing signs (see my previous post) in the Loch and Ravine.

Hi Cal -

No, we certainly have not given up on keeping dogs on leashes in the Woodlands. I will make sure the signs go back up, I didn't realize so many were gone. I guess I've been distracted here in the Ramble.

Also, I will have Neil bring it up in his next meeting with the police and PEP, and I'll reiterate with staff to remind people to leash their dogs. I'll make sure the signs go up within the next couple of days.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention and we can discuss it further at the next meeting.

Hope you are well.
Regina

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Dogs Run Amok in Central Park's North End

The unprecented development north of 96th St. (and extending well into Harlem above 110th) has filled the north end of Central Park with more people than ever before. This summer the increase in park users was dramatic, particularily on weekends.

While I belive that everyone should be free to enjoy one of New York City's greatest assets, I am in constant conflict with the small (but growing) number of dog owners who allow their dogs to run off the leash beyond the "normal" leashless hours. This is a particular problem in the woodland or "Forever Wild" areas that include the Loch and Ravine in the north end of the park. Dogs are never suppose to be off the leash in "Forever Wild" areas.

You may notice the broken plants in the photo on the left. I cannot state for certain that the damage was done by dogs but I have dogs do similar damage to the native plantings in the Wildflower Meadow.

Not only do these unleashed dogs destroy plants (and force the Parks Department to spend many thousands of dollars in replantings) they also destroy necessary and vital habit for resident and migrating birds and make it harder for bird watchers (and photographers) to enjoy these areas.

Last Thursday, while I was trying to photograph a Northern Waterthrush feeding along the stream in the Loch no less than 8 dogs came running through the water in the span of an hour. Needless to say it was impossible to get a photo of the waterthrush. I came on Saturday and managed to get my shot but only by dint of luck (and a lull in dog traffic.) The photo below is from this session. The waterthrush is eating a worm it dug from the bank of the stream.

The lakes and streams of Central Park are essential breeding and feeding grounds for resident and migrating birds and, as such, should be protected from this type of damage and disruption.

The Park's Department, however, does not seem to see it this way: I was shocked to discover that most of the "Leash Dogs in Woodlands at All Times" signs had disappeared from the Loch and Ravine. The signs that were once displayed prominentely at the east and west entrances to the Loch and Ravine are gone as is the sign that once graced the uppper part of the Wildflower Meadow. Several other signs have also been removed along to south path in the Loch and Ravine. There are no "Keep Your Dogs Out of the Water" signs anywhere in this vital habitat.

This can hardly be an accident. An e-mail requesting a clarification on the missing signs was sent to Regina Alvarez, Central Park Conservancy's Woodlands Manager but it has not been answered but I am very curious to hear what she has to say.

Unfortunately enforcement of the leash laws in the north end of Central Park is non-existent. In fact, I have yet to see a PEP officer in the Loch or Ravine this summer. Occasionally a mounted patrol will amble through on a public relations mission but the last thing they want to do is get down off their horses and enforce the leash law. When people realize there is no downside to letting their dogs run free (apart from the consternation of bird watchers and other nature lovers) why should they leash their dogs?

And speaking of that consternation, I receive constant verbal abuse when asking dog owners to removed their dogs from the stream in the Loch. The answer I usually get is, "There's no sign that says I can't." Yeah, right.

You would think I would stop after being physically threatened by a large man who let his five enormous dogs run amok in the wildflower meadow last summer. (Don't bother calling 911 if you get in trouble in the north end of the park, the only location they have in their computer is Lasker Rink.) But this brings to mind another point: when laws are not enforced people take laws into their owns hands. I only pray the unfortunate incident of the spiked meat last week near the Great Lawn is not a consequence of this problem.

As you may be aware, there is a determined group in Brooklyn and Queens trying to get the city to enforce the leash laws. The Queens group has even sued the city to try and compel them to enforce the leash laws in all city parks. Commissioner Benepe has declined the judges recommendation that the parties meet and work out a compromise. It seems he would prefe the judge decide. A ruling is not expected before this fall.

Commissioner Benepe has sent a mixed message about leash law enforcement. In a 1998 New York Magazine article he stated:

What is strikingly new, says Benepe, is the size of the breeds people are
buying. For many decades, the typical New York dog tended to be a handbag baby
-- Pekingese, Maltese, Yorkie, Pomeranian, etc. -- no doubt because rules
against pets in apartments were pervasive and strict, and the little fellas were
easier to smuggle in and out. Now, says Benepe, he and his staff are seeing
bigger and bigger dogs coming into the parks: the obvious retrievers, German
shepherds, St. Bernards, Rottweilers, huskies, and Labs, but also Rhodesian
Ridgebacks, Irish wolfhounds, Great Danes. Several of these appear on the
American Kennel Club’s top ten breeds of last year (the top two are Labs and
Rotts). The Big Dog syndrome can be seen as an invasion of suburbiana into the
city’s culture -- the priorities of Westport, White Plains, and Saddle River
abroad in Central Park. Benepe, however, believes they’re “a fashion statement.”

Henry, a corporate lawyer who lives “in the Eighties just off Park,” laughingly agrees. Henry had a good year in ‘97 and bought himself a colossal Great Dane we’ll call Dog Doe. But it’s not just fashion, says Henry; he likes “the feeling of walking along the street with a big dog in tow.” Perhaps it’s akin to that earlier-nineties chic: being trailed by a large bodyguard with a wire in his ear. Or perhaps -- big dog being current media slang for an Alpha-male over-achiever -- owning one makes you, by association, the meanest predator in the pack. Like sports utes, these often dangerous, always expensive dogs are symbols of boom times: They mirror the bulging pecs of an economy on steroids. Henry also bought a Range
Rover last year, mainly to have something to transport Dog Doe around in.
Big cur, big car.

Henry’s self-image is his own business, his choice of cur -- and car -- a
private one. Until he goes outside. Then it becomes a public affair. Benepe
points out that New Yorkers, charmed by the unquestionable grace and heft of
these animals -- many well in excess of 100 pounds -- fail to realize that
they’re working dogs, bred to be hunters, trackers, shepherds, and guards.
(The Rhodesian ridgeback, for example, was bred to protect livestock and hunt lions.)

No matter how steely your buns, if you’re a lissome 110 pounds, you’re going to
have trouble holding back a Siberian husky whose vocation in life is pulling
fully loaded sleds with large Alaskans standing on them.

“People are almost compelled to let them off the leash, because they need so much more exercise and space,” says Benepe. Dog owners make these choices and then expect their fellow New Yorkers to live with the consequences.


“They say to us, ‘You need to allow us to exercise hunting dogs in crowded
nineteenth-century parks.’ “

I don't think Henry is going to change. If he feels his "big dog" needs to run free in Central Park then he will let it. And, of course, Henry is a potential Central Park Conservancy donor. I am not one for conspiracy theories but I could see how the Conservancy would not like to anger the Henry's who live next to Central Park and consider it their backyard.


In any case, it is clear the leash laws are not being enforced in New York City Parks and I support the Juniper Park Civic Association's lawsuit. More on their lawsuit at the Prospect Park Advocate Blog.

Please sign the petition requesting Commissioner Benape enforce the leash law in New York City parks.

About me

  • I'm Cal Vornberger
  • From New York City, United States
  • I am a professional wildlife photographer living in New York City. My book, "Birds of Central Park," was published in September 2005.
My profile