Unpupular opinions for breaches of beachside conduct

April 16, 2023 12:51 PM

"I unclipped her leash and Kit began to saunter, then run, one step ahead of the frothy surf, like a sandpiper. The wind pinned her floppy ears against her head, and she flung herself down to roll ecstatically in some dead, washed-up thing. She looked happy; she looked free; she looked right. In that, Kit wasn’t alone—many dogs love the beach. But the beach doesn’t love our dogs."

"A growing body of literature suggests that Canis lupus familiaris has become a significant force of disturbance along the world’s shorelines—not just the packs of feral dogs that roam some less regulated shores but also the domestic pooches whose well-meaning owners, like me, turn them loose for a romp in the sand. Dogs have been known to maul seal pups, outcompete native scavengers for dead fish, and dig up turtle nests. They save some of their worst harms for shorebirds, killing chicks, crushing eggs, and forcing migrating birds to burn more calories than they can spare." (From the above Atlantic link.)

While it is commonly observed that the household cat (previously) and rodents (Approximately 42% of all mammalian species in the world are rodents, amounting to
about 2277 species) have had ecologically significant impacts on ecosystems, the effect of domesticated dogs on ecosystems is understudied.

"Our latest research reveals that the ecological "pawprint" of domestic dogs is much greater than previously realised.

"Aside from simply killing animals, dogs can harm wildlife in other ways, such as by spreading disease, interbreeding with other canids, competing for resources such as food or shelter, and causing disturbances by chasing or harassment. ... Part of the problem is that when wild animals perceive dogs as a threat, they may change their behaviour to avoid them. One study near Sydney found that dog walking in parklands and national parks reduced the abundance and species richness of birds, even when dogs were restrained on leads."

"Despite their widespread and sometimes severe impacts on biodiversity, dogs can also benefit some species and ecosystems."

None of this negates the unleashing of positive impacts on mental health that pets can have, but frames the potential impact of unleashing a pet upon an unsuspecting environment.

It would be disingenuous to frame the ecological impact of dogs (or cats/rodents) without noting humans impact on beach health. Or that much of this is a footnote in "Estimating the global risk of anthropogenic climate change" and that of corporations impact on the climate and that "that 71% of all global GHG1 emissions since 1988 can be traced to just 100 fossil fuel producers."

posted by burntbook (115 comments total)

I unclipped her leash and Kit began to saunter, then run, one step ahead of the frothy surf, like a sandpiper.

So mad at u already.
posted by Going To Maine at 12:57 PM on April 16, 2023 [21 favorites]

I've never really been a dog person, so the explosion in dog ownership over the last decade has been ruff on me.
posted by keep_evolving at 1:01 PM on April 16, 2023 [14 favorites]

that 71% of all global GHG1 emissions since 1988 can be traced to just 100 fossil fuel producers

In the same sense that 100% of all wealth is created by the mint, sure.
posted by Dysk at 1:29 PM on April 16, 2023 [11 favorites]

Whenever I've taken a dog to the beach they always seem to immediately chug a bunch of saltwater and give themselves diarrhea. Makes the beach a much less appealing field trip.

I feel like a lot of canine impact on wild environments happens because so many dog owners have decided in the last decade or so that their personal dog deserves an exception to leash rules. I'm so tired of it. My dog was bit by a dog daycare classmate and she's very skittish around unleashed dogs she doesn't know as a result. An unleashed dog at the park just means we have to turn around and leave, so for self interested reasons I get pretty mad when the first thing someone does at a park is unclip the leash. But it also means that dog is trampling and urinating on plants, attacking wild animals, pooping in places where it won't be picked up, and generally wreaking much more havoc than it would be if it were leashed and staying on the trail, which feels like it was the norm until pretty recently.
posted by potrzebie at 1:35 PM on April 16, 2023 [53 favorites]

A constant in the universe: badly behaved dogs have badly behaved owners. I've never met a kind, thoughtful person with a shitty, rude dog. I guess that's why it's so grating when a unleashed dog comes up to me on the beach or in a park and tries to steal my food or my shoes or gets rude with its nose: the owner will never, ever apologize.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:56 PM on April 16, 2023 [30 favorites]

One time I was at the beach on Long Island, sitting by the ocean with my dad and my husband just soaking up the vibes and loving my life.

I started playing with some sand, scooping it up and squeezing it and letting it slip through my fingers all soft and warm. Suddenly I was squeezing something soft and warm and strangely squishy and then the unmistakable reek of dog shit began to perfume the area. Both my hands were covered with the stuff. Fun times!
posted by RobinofFrocksley at 2:00 PM on April 16, 2023 [14 favorites]

(I just remember some ancient tweet by Josh Barro that was like “Look, those signs about keeping your dogs on a leash on the beach, we all know those are a joke, right?” Mad at him forever.)
posted by Going To Maine at 2:01 PM on April 16, 2023 [4 favorites]

> I've never met a kind, thoughtful person with a shitty, rude dog.

I've met plenty, but those people tend to keep their rude dogs on a leash because they know their dog has behavioral issues.

I also live with a bunch of people on some number of acres and there's at least 3-4 dogs that we let free roam the property even though it's not fenced in because they (generally) know not to leave the property.

Like there have been some misadventures where they team up and go get into a nearby pond and swamp and come back just gloriously proud of themselves and covered in mud and duckweed and oh dear.

Anyway, one of the landmates has a relatively new dog and he's been stealing bike tools and parts off my little patio work area and she replaced everything he chewed up and pilfered as soon as I mentioned it. He's also got into our trash shed a few times and she's been really responsive about taking care of that, too.

Her dog is just coming out of being a puppy and being a teenager so hopefully he'll mellow out and socialize more.

Another landmate has a big derpy Golden Retriever and he's a good dog but he's also a permanently derpy Golden Retriever and that's just never going to change. He annoyed me at first but he's grown on me. He's pure of heart and really just wants to be loved. And he really, really wants to retrieve. A lot. Which is fun if you want to throw his Kong ball as far as you possibly can and maybe even somewhere off into the weeds so he has a challenge and it takes him more than about 5 seconds to do the retrieving.

His whole personality reminds me of a really permanently stoned but very health energetic surfer or something. He just wants everyone to be as happy and as stoked about life as he is and that's about all the dog thoughts he's even remotely capable of. If that dog was a human roommate he'd be the kind of human that woke up at dawn and made fresh smoothies and whole grain soudough waffles for the whole house... and then tried to get you to play hooky from work and go surfing.

But, yeah, out in public in parks, beaches or on trails and stuff? Unleashed dogs are not ok. It's not just about the safety of other people or other dogs but caring about your dog. They can be the best dog in the world but if they're off leash and moving unpredictably while someone like me is trying to bike past them on a trail it's not ok.

I've had so many close calls where someone's dog darts in front of me even though I'm riding very slow and covering my brakes and it drives me crazy.

There's also all kinds of other reasons to keep your dogs leashed and not free to run up to strangers. Some people have legitimate fears of dogs or allergies and otherwise don't consent to interacting with your dog.

I'm ok with meeting new dogs because dogs are generally better than people, but it still really bugs me when someone's off-leash dog runs up to me and the dog's owner just calls out "Oh, he's friendly!" and my immediate thought is "Yeah, but what if I'm not?" because I've been chased on my bike way too many times by "friendly" dogs and I really don't want to have to pepper spray or kick at anyone's dog in self defense or any of that.
posted by loquacious at 2:30 PM on April 16, 2023 [37 favorites]

They added a dogpark next to one of my study streams halfway through grad school. Ammonium and fecal coliform concentrations in the stream shot up (and they were not great to begin with).
posted by hydropsyche at 3:02 PM on April 16, 2023 [18 favorites]

Yes, dog owners seem to be more presumptuous than the average person. Compounded by the general sense that many communities are more dog friendly and generally more accepting than they used to be. On the upside, free roaming dogs in the city are much less of a problem than they were when I was a kid, and dog owners are much more responsible than they were when I was a kid. Which is better overall, tidyness, and safety for all, including the dogs themselves. On the downside, I've seen more than a few support dogs that were clearly nothing more than poorly trained pets. Please don't take your dog into a supermarket or any public place where they could possibly be a nuisance unless they are verifiably trained to be in such places.

Feral dogs, the focus of much of the op, are indeed a real problem virtually everywhere they exist, and in many places, are dealt with in ways dog lovers would not like. So, yeah, don't abandon your dog, but I think folks here are not that population that really needs to hear this.
posted by 2N2222 at 3:51 PM on April 16, 2023 [7 favorites]

My mom has been part of our local marine mammal stranding network for many years. Harbor seals leave their babies on the beach while they hunt. As the Atlantic article mentions briefly, dogs are a major danger to seal pups. Many of the dead seals found on beaches here have bite marks that appear to be from dogs. Dogs are not allowed on beaches here, even if leashed.
posted by mbrubeck at 3:54 PM on April 16, 2023 [13 favorites]

My apt complex is dog friendly, but too many people don't pick up their fucking poo. Which makes me feel dog-unfriendly when I have to gingerly pick my way across any grass.

I have long wished it was harder to get a dog and mandatory for any dog to be sterilized without a special breeding license. Every owner should have to get certified and taught local laws. Dogs are too awesome for so many to be mistreated, untrained and allowed to cause problems.
posted by emjaybee at 3:58 PM on April 16, 2023 [11 favorites]

Yes, Seattle doesn't allow dogs on the beaches, maybe one dog park at Magnuson that allows them? We don't get over there much.

But having been a youth soccer coach, and despite all the signs saying, "YOU MAY NOT HAVE YOUR DOG HERE" on all the turf fields. There they were.

On the other hand... DOGS!
(who are mostly the best)
((except for our puppy who just turned one yesterday and is a horrible child))
posted by Windopaene at 4:00 PM on April 16, 2023 [2 favorites]

Hot take:

Pets are assuredly bad for the environment, unleashed pets even more so. But they are not particularly worse than anything else we humans do for our pleasure. And dogs do like to run.

When we go to the beach, we disturb and displace flora and fauna. When we build roads, when we drive cars, when we encourage tourism and travel, we hurt the ecosystem.

When we have unleashed pet dogs, we hurt it just a little bit more. But it's hypocritical to spotlight this one thing while ignoring, for instance, that we are also driving cars to the beach, perhaps even flying. And the impact of driving and flying on marine and coastal health is infinitely greater than anything that even the most destructive unleashed dog can do.
posted by splitpeasoup at 4:11 PM on April 16, 2023 [21 favorites]

Humans' physical impact on the beaches they visit and the trails they hike (after cutting them out of the brush and terrain) inestimably exceeds that of the canids they bring along. Without needing to get into climate change. And, how about a human on a horse? (Let alone a bike.)

Pave paradise, put up a parking lot?

Just don't let your dogs bother other beachgoers who aren't into your dogs. See also, your kids.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:14 PM on April 16, 2023 [3 favorites]

and generally wreaking much more havoc than it would be if it were leashed and staying on the trail, which feels like it was the norm until pretty recently.

At least where I have lived, having dogs on leashes is a very recent norm. When I was a kid there were basically three kinds of dogs: lapdogs, pet or hunting dogs that roamed free in the neighborhood during the day but came home at night, and dogs that lived chained in the yard year-round. (Plus some that were more or less homeless but weren't feral -- "community dogs" is what they are called now, I think.) Other than an occasional small fluffy dog, I don't think I ever saw a dog on a leash until we moved to a larger city when I was in middle school, and it was still a relatively rare sight.

I grew up in places that were somewhat behind the times, so someone my age who grew up in larger, more liberal places would have always been around dogs on leashes.

Given the collective impact of humans on beaches, it's hard to get too exercised about the specific impact from dogs, while also acknowledging that it is an impact.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:17 PM on April 16, 2023 [5 favorites]

that 71% of all global GHG1 emissions since 1988 can be traced to just 100 fossil fuel producers

the cops don't actually make the law
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:23 PM on April 16, 2023

Humans' physical impact on the beaches they visit and the trails they hike (after cutting them out of the brush and terrain) inestimably exceeds that of the canids they bring along. Without needing to get into climate change. And, how about a human on a horse? (Let alone a bike.)

While this is obviously environment-dependent, it also seems to me that in many, if not most, locations, the presence or absence of canids--each of which has its own implications, which may be positive or negative to varying degrees--is the result of human intervention. There's a bit of an underlying idea here that the "natural" state is canid-free, and even in cities that's not necessarily so.
posted by praemunire at 4:26 PM on April 16, 2023 [5 favorites]

A good point. It's an aggravation. I guess it just seems like the least of our interventions? And one natural ecology is better equipped to deal with. But, the 'natural' fallacy is a hazard too.
posted by snuffleupagus at 4:40 PM on April 16, 2023

A constant in the universe: badly behaved dogs have badly behaved owners. I've never met a kind, thoughtful person with a shitty, rude dog. I guess that's why it's so grating when a unleashed dog comes up to me on the beach or in a park and tries to steal my food or my shoes or gets rude with its nose: the owner will never, ever apologize.

my dog (who died last year) was a rescue who despite being charming, good-natured, friendly to all (but cats) never gave up trying to scrounge whatever food she could get, particularly when out and about (sometimes on beaches). I generally kept her from annoying strangers but sometimes failed.

I always apologized when this happened.
posted by philip-random at 5:06 PM on April 16, 2023 [7 favorites]

We recently welcomed a Black and Tan Kelpie into our family. Kelpies are energetic dogs and need lots of exercise so she gets walked at least 30-40 minutes twice a day and, wherever possible, I let her off the leash because she wants to run and because I've learned to trust her not to annoy people or go too far from me. But she's a dog that loves to meet new people and get pats from them so, whenever other people (especially if they're walking dogs) are within possible annoying distance, she goes back on the leash. I do this because I know many people are distrustful or scared of unleashed dogs and many have good cause to feel this way because not all dogs are as well-behaved as Luna. I also don't trust other people's dogs not to attack her if they get the chance, because so many people have dogs that are barely a step away from wild or, even worse, have been specifically trained to be agressive.

But as far as the environmental impact of dogs goes, I agree with others that have said it's not dogs that are the problem, it's people (isn't it always?). Whether because of abandoned or 'lost' dogs that become feral or because they aren't contained and roam freely in places they shouldn't, it's people that are the cause of the issue, not dogs. Dogs are just being dogs and, without the influence of humans, would not likely survive in numbers large enough to be a problem. People, however, are a different story.

that 71% of all global GHG1 emissions since 1988 can be traced to just 100 fossil fuel producers

Which sounds bad, until you look at a couple of the more important dot points:
Almost a third (32%) of historic emissions come from publicly listed investor-owned companies, 59% from state-owned companies, and 9% from private investment;
Over half of global industrial emissions since 1988 can be traced to just 25 corporate and state producers;

So, 59% of emissions are from state entities and 50% are from 25 corporate or state entities. No matter how you slice that (assuming it's true), the most significant sector in emission terms is state entities? I guess the government representatives speaking about how we are all responsible for curbing climate change didn't get briefed on that or something?
posted by dg at 5:27 PM on April 16, 2023 [2 favorites]

The thing about "my dog is friendly" shouted by the snowflakes who ignore leashed-dogs-only signs is that other dogs may not be, dogs who have the right to be able to be walked on-leash in the same park without their humans having to worry about an incident. I walk my pup on leash twice a day, every day, at local parks and there was a person working with their very reactive dog who had to give up because of the jerks who refuse to leash their pets. On leash we could just walk by them while they rewarded the pup for not eating my dog, but a "friendly" off-leash dog is not something easily managed.

But snowflakes gotta snowflake. There are off-leash parks in most localities.
posted by maxwelton at 6:11 PM on April 16, 2023 [20 favorites]

Do you sex every dog before you decide whether it's annoying you? Or is it perhaps more about their owner's dickishness?

I'm a two cat man, but come on.
posted by snuffleupagus at 6:34 PM on April 16, 2023

"There's no bad dogs just bad owners" feels real similar to "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

The number of times I've been charged at and often knocked over in my own damn yard by random ass dogs who were off leash or escaped is approaching the double digits. I'd be perfectly happy with much more stringent ownership requirements for dogs given how fucking often they're allowed to wreak havoc with zero consequences for the owners.
posted by Ferreous at 6:44 PM on April 16, 2023 [18 favorites]

...other dogs may not be, dogs who have the right to be able to be walked on-leash in the same park without their humans having to worry about an incident
I absolutely agree, which is why 'whenever other people (especially if they're walking dogs) are within possible annoying distance, she goes back on the leash'. Possible annoying distance, to me, means anywhere within reasonable sight so maybe 100m or so? I have no desire to put other humans in a position where they're worried about an incident, whether they're walking a dog or not.

In my experience, there are bad dogs just as often as there are bad people. Most of the time, I don't really care what made either of them bad, I'm just going to avoid them wherever possible.
posted by dg at 7:15 PM on April 16, 2023 [4 favorites]

I was reading the Atlantic article, and exactly at the moment when I was thinking "how refreshing that this is about dogs. Usually it's cats that get stick for their destructive behavior," I got to the paragraph about how cats are responsible for up to four billion bird deaths a year in the US. The thing is, that "up to" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that claim. That number came from a meta study, there were a lot of estimates involved in reaching that number, and IIRC, the range was more like 1.5 to 4 billion. It makes me skeptical about the rest of the article, for all that I am entertained by telling friends that their cats are the worst invasive species.

Weird to read the article. My dog is a rescued street dog who used to live on a beach with occasional sea turtle nests. It is likely that she has eaten sea turtle eggs, and generally done a lot of the bad beach related things. Mostly she scavenged from the tourists. She's good around people, very cautious around other dogs, and covered in scars. Those things are probably related.

The most well-known off leash area near me is a beach. My dog loves it, and I'd be sad if it went away. 40 years ago, it used to be covered in sand dollars, but now, not so much. I think that's down to the children and beachcombers, though, not the dogs.

(Also, "unpupular." Nice. )
posted by surlyben at 7:20 PM on April 16, 2023 [6 favorites]

Shitty people + dogs are as old as old as time.

Hey, our family often works with misbehaving rescues with some adventures, very apologetically.

Then there's also those guys who style themselves as tough guys with their pooches...
posted by ovvl at 7:30 PM on April 16, 2023 [1 favorite]

The number of times I've been charged at and often knocked over in my own damn yard by random ass dogs who were off leash or escaped is approaching the double digits

A numbers breakdown would be really helpful here.
posted by tigrrrlily at 8:13 PM on April 16, 2023

8 times in my current home, I think 6 of them were people with dogs off leash that just bolted into the yard while I was working on my garden and the other two were just lost dogs that happened to do the same. Most of them were pit bulls and I'm lucky that none of them were violent but when you are caught off guard by a heavy adult dog jumping up on you it's real easy to fall over, sometimes into things that really fucking hurt to land on, for example a concrete garden wall. I'm lucky I'm relatively young and able bodied, I can see why my elderly neighbor across the street has a fully fenced in yard because the same thing could severely injure or kill her. Even the ones that didn't knock me over usually left me scratched up, bruised or with torn clothing. My wife had a dog off leash jump into her chin and cause her to smash her front tooth badly enough it broke off the bottom quarter.

The idea that the average person can walk around with a creature that could easily injure or kill someone while exerting zero control over it is absurd. If bad owners are such a problem then there really should be much more enforcement and regulation of the ownership of dogs.
posted by Ferreous at 8:34 PM on April 16, 2023 [15 favorites]

Mod note: 7segment, your comment was deleted because replying to other users' comments with "jesus fucking christ" and other not-useful statements are against our guidelines. Check them out here for tips on how to participate in threads. Also, the swearing is absolutely not OK.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 8:36 PM on April 16, 2023 [3 favorites]

... the swearing is absolutely not OK.
Oh, look, a new unpublished guideline.
posted by dg at 8:44 PM on April 16, 2023 [16 favorites]

ctrl-f 'shit'
ctrl-f 'fuck'
ctrl-f 'damn'


i think the swearing is absolutely sometimes OK
posted by logicpunk at 8:58 PM on April 16, 2023 [8 favorites]

I generally kept her from annoying strangers but sometimes failed.

for the record, in case you were imaging something rather intimidating, that dog that sometimes annoyed strangers looked something like this.
posted by philip-random at 10:02 PM on April 16, 2023 [2 favorites]

I live in a building in high used to allow two small pets, feline or canine. Some people had pet birds (parrots) . The dogs or cats limit is now one dog or cat. They are not meant to run about on their own. People are supposed to clean up any spillage or dumpage. They are supposed to keep their pets quiet. I no longer wear any shoes but Crocs office flats. Except in Winter when our climate has snow. The neighborhood is FULL of dogs who run loose. Dog wastes are a constant issue in the neighborhood and the building. A lot of people here do not feed their dogs correctly.
Which exacerbated the dog waste products issue. I have chosen not to keep pets. I had cats mostly when the kids were at home. They were indoor cats and I fed a few feral cats.
I’m absolutely not a fan of cats or dogs being free-range. People at the bare minimum need to keep their dogs in their own yards. Hopefully said dogs won’t be trying to break out and attack me when I’m walking by, minding my own business.
Will I help an injured dog? Yes! I risked my own life to help a dog who got loose and was hit by a bus. Put him on my coat so his owner and I could drag him out of traffic.
People generally need to consider whether they can give a dog or a cat or other pet a decent life and whether they are up to the job of training , socializing and general care of a dog, cat or other pet.
It’s a life and death responsibility.
I grew tired of responsibility years ago. Two now grown kids and a dozen or so cats along the way were enough.
If I want to go someplace or do something, it’s nice not having to worry about a cat or or a dog, how they’ll eat, go to the bathroom, or whether they’ll cry or bark or mess up my place, or escape…etc.
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 10:16 PM on April 16, 2023 [3 favorites]

... the swearing is absolutely not OK.
Oh, look, a new unpublished guideline

Swearing at other users has been against the guidelines for ages.

Name calling: Any kind of name calling and/or cursing directed at others in a conversation. (Pointing out that a statement is inappropriate or otherwise problematic is not name-calling.) In general, cursing is fine on the site, but cursing at someone else is not okay.

posted by TheophileEscargot at 10:20 PM on April 16, 2023 [19 favorites]

My neighbors adopted a horrid little shipom( googling tells me that pomeranians are EXTREMELY reactive and despite their size not suited for multi unit places) 16 months ago.

When I 1st saw her,she sniffed, licked and seemed to accept me but since then throws a fit every time she hears me: including when I'm in my own unit.

One of the couple has held her up to me and claimed that her snarling and growling is " the way she says hello". My family has had dogs of varying temperaments since I was a toddler: I know full well how friendly dogs behave.

I just found a post from him on his social media from the time they got her saying that she'd been aggressive with her former owners newborn baby.

Their last dog also threw fits whenever she saw me ( same scenario of seeming to accept me at 1st) , but stopped when I made it clear she wasn't the alpha by roaring at her ( not nice, but I was in an extremely bad mood at the time....this is also recommended for coyote encounters).
posted by brujita at 10:45 PM on April 16, 2023 [2 favorites]

Really love the turn this thread has taken. Love the contempt for the concept of dog ownership or whatever the hell is happening here. Incredible look, very bold, the modwank adds a delightful piquancy. But let's wait for the judges.
posted by a power-tie-wearing she-capitalist at 11:19 PM on April 16, 2023 [8 favorites]

As someone whose child learned to say the word "poo" right after "mama" and "dada" after just one walk around a park, I view contemporary dog enthusiasts as a sort of a #NotAllMen equivalent. Like, yeah, sure, there are good dog owners. But I don't think shitting on other people's arguments about irresponsible owner and/or dog behaviour is really proving your point.
posted by gakiko at 12:59 AM on April 17, 2023 [9 favorites]

I'm not a dog owner or dog lover, I don't know whether in the UK we have different traditions around dogs, but I've always assumed that they should be on the lead on streets but that it's completely normal for a dog be running around off lead on recreation grounds and large parks. And in fact, taking a dog for a walk might actually mean taking a dog to an open space where they can run around off lead.
posted by plonkee at 1:52 AM on April 17, 2023 [3 favorites]

I guess we can add, um, dogs? (Really? WTF??) to the list of things Metafilter doesn't do well? As far as I can tell, the original post isn't even about leash scofflaws, particularly. It's about dogs on beaches, or more broadly the impact of human associated animals (and dogs in particular) on the natural environment. I wonder if this leash thing might not be an example of the Metafilter's WEIRD (Western Educated Industrial Rich Democracy) bias showing.

If you look at the "ecological pawprint" link in the original post you'll find a map showing the places in the world where dogs are threatening lots of species, and those places are basically everywhere that isn't North America and Europe. I'm speculating a bit, but I think they are also places where the "leash your badly behaved labradoodle" debate isn't really a thing because the whole attitude towards dogs is different.
posted by surlyben at 2:15 AM on April 17, 2023 [12 favorites]

the UK we have different traditions around dogs

Yep. The expectation that dogs should be on leads even in parks is a very USian thing and I don't understand how dog owners (or their dogs) tolerate it. I occasionally make the mistake of visiting a place with such a rule and it's completely miserable.
posted by grahamparks at 2:36 AM on April 17, 2023 [1 favorite]

Plonkee, my observation in the UK is that things have gotten worse since lots of people locally got dogs during lockdown. We can no longer take our rather fearful (and reactive) mutt to the local fields because there are too many poorly socialised, poorly trained off the lead the dogs around. The "but mine's friendly" tends to get a "yeah, but mine's not" response from me.

Legally, "It’s against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control" in a public place and it's considered dangerously out of control if it "injures someone" or "makes someone worried that it might injure them". (https://www.gov.uk/control-dog-public)

Had that happen when out with the kids when they were younger - they got badly scared and we were glad to have an umbrella handy to fend off the dog. But no-one seems to care much. So, officially off lead is OK, but you're supposed to have control/recall of your dog. But so many people don't.

I only ever used to let ours off the lead on those fields at 6am in the morning when we were sure to be on our own. Don't even do that now - but she's also got older and isn't too bothered about going for a run.
posted by IncognitoErgoSum at 2:36 AM on April 17, 2023 [6 favorites]

I'm going to place "off leash dogs" in second place under "bikes vs cars" in the ranking of Things Metafilter Does Poorly. Common in both situations seems to be parties not being able to manage their entitlement to do a thing despite the clear negative externalities that behaviour causes.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:02 AM on April 17, 2023 [8 favorites]

A thread about unleashed dogs from last November with a decidedly different tone.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 5:03 AM on April 17, 2023 [3 favorites]

When did Nextdoor change to the modern dark theme, weird.

Anyway, it is true that people can be assholes about neglecting their responsibilities, and dogs (even friendly ones) can be a somewhere between a nuisance and a hazard when not controlled.

Please enjoy this YouTube video about Italian lifeguard dogs!
posted by the primroses were over at 5:18 AM on April 17, 2023 [1 favorite]

I have a general rule after my dad was severely bitten by someone's "friendly" dog: no one needs to own a dog with a jaw that's big enough to clamp down on an adult human's upper forearm.

I go to the beach a lot. I don't mind it when an adorable little fluffy yorkie or shih tzu comes running over off-leash to say hello to me. I do however mind it when someone's erratic, hyperactive, off-leash "friendly" labrador runs over to say hello to my crotch. "He's just excited" they always say as if that's an excuse for letting an untrained dog run around on a public beach where dogs technically aren't even allowed. Dog owners are the worst.

When I was a kid, someone's dog would usually barge their way into our sand castles and pee over everything long before the tide could even have a chance of destroying things.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:43 AM on April 17, 2023 [3 favorites]

You have "rules" about the size of other people's pets? Weird, how do you enforce them?
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 5:59 AM on April 17, 2023 [3 favorites]

There are already rules in most municipalities that dogs need to be trained and under the owner's control at all times. Certainly in the case of my father, who was bitten by a dog to the point of needing stitches, the owners of that dog needed to prove that it had all it's shots and they had to be interviewed by the local dog officer about why it was off-leash and why it was so "friendly" that it ran up and bit him on the sidewalk as he was walking by.

But go on. Single out my single rhetorical turn of phrase instead of actually responding to my argument that dog ownership requires a lot of responsibility from owners and that there are a lot of dog owners who are not suited to own such large dogs.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:13 AM on April 17, 2023 [8 favorites]

I agree it's a lot responsibility to have a pet and that many people fail in that responsibility. I don't agree that size has much to do with it. Your "rule" was oddly specific like you've given it some thought, rather than just an awkward phrasing, so I genuinely wonder what you envision as the consequences of breaking the rule. It sounds like you would like large breeds to be banned? But small breeds are ok off lease? Because they adorably say hello to "you" instead of your crotch?
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 6:27 AM on April 17, 2023 [1 favorite]

I do not feel intimidated or threatened by dogs that I can scoop up in one hand and who could maybe bite a finger if they really got lucky.

Dogs that have enough mass to knock me to the ground and enough of a bite that they could do serious damage do scare me.

I am absolutely biased towards small dogs. Small dogs get a bigger pass regarding their behavior because they're small. I've met some very chill large dogs that wouldn't hurt a fly and I've met small dogs that were vicious little ankle-biters. But when encountering a strange dog who is making sudden movements and acting in unpredictable ways, I would much rather that dog be under fifteen pounds than over seventy.

And I shouldn't have to take it on faith from the dog's owner that their off-leash dog is actually very gentle when it's sticking it's mouth full of very large teeth into my crotch for a "friendly" sniff. Small dogs come with the benefit that they can't even reach that high.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:38 AM on April 17, 2023 [12 favorites]

Fair, thank you for elucidating.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 6:42 AM on April 17, 2023 [2 favorites]

> Yep. The expectation that dogs should be on leads even in parks is a very USian thing and I don't understand how dog owners (or their dogs) tolerate it.

Really wish we had that rule in the UK. "Oh, he's just being friendly" they always say, but from my point of view, regardless of size or supposed temperament, they're full of teeth + claws + slobber, they scare my child, and you need to keep them at least 2 metres away from me, leashed or not.

Currently my local park has a dog-free area fenced off around the bandstand, and the local "friends of park" group are talking about removing the fence to make the park more dog friendly. Like there's just this assumption that we all love dogs and want them everywhere. Like I can't work in my co-working space or eat at the local cafe without discovering some random dog sneaking up and sniffing at my ankles.

Your dog creates a particular way that you occupy space, projecting power into it and restricting other folks' use of that space (even when leashed), but we're not meant to question that entitlement because canine-normativity is a thing and we're animal hating killjoys to even bring up the matter.
posted by iivix at 6:53 AM on April 17, 2023 [22 favorites]

This this was a post about the impact unleashed dogs have on wildlife and how we need to think about that given that so many birds and such are threatened, and leash dogs in areas where they could damage nests and such, and is now people complaining about all the ways that unleashed dogs have personally ruined their lives, seems to me to perfectly encapsulate why wildlife is so fragile: we, as a species, really don't seem to care about things until they personally affect us a solid 95% of the time.

Sorry, OP. This was an interesting topic, too.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 7:03 AM on April 17, 2023 [21 favorites]

I don't know whether in the UK we have different traditions around dogs, but I've always assumed that . . . it's completely normal for a dog be running around off lead on recreation grounds and large parks

Fenton! (Oh Jesus Christ.)
posted by The Bellman at 7:06 AM on April 17, 2023 [2 favorites]

canine-normativity is a thing

Yes. Just unambiguously yes. Dogs literally evolved alongside humans from wolves. They're called "man's best friend" for a reason, they're effectively part of humanity. The attitude of not wanting to see dogs in public spaces is only slightly less noxious than not wanting to see children in public spaces.

That said, people absolutely do need to rein in their dogs and teach them good behavior, same as children. A random person's dog shouldn't be sniffing your crotch or ankles any more than a random child should be bothering you.

I own two greyhounds. They're large (80 lb) dogs, always kept on leash (yes literally always, if there's no enclosure, they're leashed), and we hate when people have off-leash dogs who come running, because I'm honestly more afraid for the smaller dog than for mine. I'm not gonna try to convince y'all that mine are good boys who are some sort of exception. They're not, they have a high prey drive, which is why they're leashed.

Bad dog ownership really sucks, but the tone of this whole thread is just kind of shitty. If folks hate dogs to the extent that they don't like sharing public space with them, maybe it's better to just take a pass on dog threads?
posted by explosion at 7:17 AM on April 17, 2023 [16 favorites]

Your dog creates a particular way that you occupy space, projecting power into it and restricting other folks' use of that space (even when leashed), but we're not meant to question that entitlement because canine-normativity is a thing.

Again, this was a post about wildlife and the impact that unleashed dogs have on nesting birds and such. But now it's apparently about how dogs project power and 'canine-normativity' completely unconnected from the environmental impact of dogs. Fair enough, but now we've moved into raging about how some people with their dogs on a lead are taking up way too much space and being inherently threatening. Which does seem like a fair jump.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 7:19 AM on April 17, 2023 [4 favorites]

In the US at any rate, there are thousands and thousands of kilometers of beach. There are beaches that are effectively wilderness, beaches that are parts of urban landscape, beaches where normal use involves driving onto them and parking.

It would be just fine if dogs were limited to beaches that were already effectively ruined ecologically. God only knows there are many, many kilometers of these beaches to take your dog to.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 7:26 AM on April 17, 2023 [4 favorites]

Canine-normativity is the set of associated values around dog ownership that skew all dog-related discourse so badly.

> Again, this was a post about wildlife and the impact that unleashed dogs have on nesting birds and such. But now it's apparently about how dogs project power and 'canine-normativity' completely unconnected from the environmental impact of dogs

Here's one example: how we must discuss environmental impact separately from the generalised problematic nature of dog ownership, because the only issue is the effect on nesting birds and not people.

> If folks hate dogs to the extent that they don't like sharing public space with them, maybe it's better to just take a pass on dog threads?

Here's a second example: suggesting that people who don't like dogs aren't allowed to voice their opinions in a thread entirely about the destructive nature of dogs.
posted by iivix at 7:34 AM on April 17, 2023 [13 favorites]

iivix, not wanting to see dogs in public is enough of an outlier, I think, that it is inevitably a derail in a post about wanting to protect natural spaces from dogs.
posted by sagc at 7:42 AM on April 17, 2023 [4 favorites]

Well, the OP is about environmental destruction. Talking about "dogs in general" is a derail.

And yeah, you're unreasonably biased. If someone referred to the "destructive nature of humans," that'd be reasonably called out as misanthropic.

If you "don't like dogs," take a pass on dog threads, much as we'd ask people who "don't like kids" to take a pass on child-centric threads.

At risk of sounding like one of those "my dogs are my children" people: dogs *are* a part of humanity, dogs *are* a part of civilization, and dismissing them as having a "destructive nature" is the sort of comment that people are going to take personally.
posted by explosion at 7:46 AM on April 17, 2023 [8 favorites]

Back to the OP topic at hand, I know I'm going to look more into whether on-leash dogs have an impact above and separate from humans. My gut feeling was that wildlife that would fear or be disturbed/deterred by dogs would also be scared off by humans, so any trail that was frequented by dogs would be fine to take dogs on. I'm now second-guessing that assumption and curious to see how much dogs might impact wildlife versus bringing additional humans.
posted by explosion at 7:50 AM on April 17, 2023

Here (PDF) is a roundup of evidence prepared by Oregon Metro that goes into the dogs vs humans vs humans+dogs question. (Basically a lot of wildlife are a lot more scared of dogs than they are of people, and not without good reason.)

It's a fair point that dogs are a fairly minor part of why many of these species are under pressure now, but now that we've put such pressure on wildlife that the mere presence of dogs can be a significant risk, it's kind of on us to address that. And many beaches that would seem like they have been ecologically destroyed still have important functions e.g. as stopping points for migratory birds.

As a (currently dogless) dog person, I don't much like this, but the weight of science on this one seems pretty strong.

That said, there are likely to be tradeoffs. There have been some studies of the effects of highly-trained bird-scaring dogs in reducing gull fecal load on beaches, which in turn reduces E. coli risk. Those findings obviously don't generalize to random people's random dogs, but it would sure be interesting to see a study on the effects on overall fecal load of a beach going from dog-friendly to no-dogs.
posted by Not A Thing at 7:54 AM on April 17, 2023 [8 favorites]

> that it is inevitably a derail in a post about wanting to protect natural spaces from dogs.

It's not a derail, it's my very point. Talking about this issue in isolation is like talking about the environmental impact of farming beef, addressing ways to cut down on beef consumption, without talking about being a vegetarian, because "eating meat is a natural part of humanity, a natural part of civilisation". We'd see that was absurd, right? But there's this blind spot, when it comes to dogs.
posted by iivix at 7:59 AM on April 17, 2023 [4 favorites]

I'm neutral on dog themselves.

I just don't like urban dog owners, especially those who don't keep their dogs on a leash. It's your problem not mine I don't want to have to be on the look out for what your dog is doing, and nobody will be looking out for nature.

But to be fair, popular beaches with thousands of humans are surely not worst for wear if *leashed* dogs are allowed on them.
posted by WaterAndPixels at 8:02 AM on April 17, 2023 [1 favorite]

Here's one example: how we must discuss environmental impact separately from the generalised problematic nature of dog ownership, because the only issue is the effect on nesting birds and not people.

No one is making you discuss anything. I just think the needing to bring everything back to the impact it has on humans might be why wildlife is in such a terrible state, and why we won't protect it for its own sake. Not everything needs to be about people and how people are affected.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 8:05 AM on April 17, 2023 [2 favorites]

Yes. Just unambiguously yes. Dogs literally evolved alongside humans from wolves. . They're called "man's best friend" for a reason, they're effectively part of humanity.

They didn't evolve alongside us, we domesticated and bred them from wolves to perform all sorts of historical tasks from herding sheep to hunting prey to guarding against intruders to being fluffy and adorable.

They're companions, but that companionship has always been defined by both by our lifestyles and our environment. It doesn't make sense to have a big dog that needs lots of open space to run unleashed if you live in a city and work most of the day. We have other dog breeds that are much better suited to that kind of life and who have a much smaller "pawprint".

It's like SUVs. Don't drive an SUV if all you need is a Honda Fit. Don't get a large dog when you can get a small one.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 8:12 AM on April 17, 2023 [3 favorites]

"Dog owners are the worst"

"I just don't like urban dog owners"

Just echoing the general sentiment that shitty comments like this make it very hard to discuss an actually very interesting article about the impact of dogs on beaches. It's really disappointing.

Full disclosure: I'm an apparently despised urban owner of a 70 pound hound dog. He's a fool who will follow his nose directly into trouble or into your picnic basket, which is why he's always on leash except for in enclosed dog-specific areas of parks.
posted by fancypants at 8:15 AM on April 17, 2023 [5 favorites]

if you're not in control of your dog (I don't care where you are), you're not being a good neighbour. Obviously, what constitutes not being in control is different for various zones (urban, suburban, rural, wilderness) but the dynamic still applies. If your dog is being a pest or a threat (and not just to humans), you're doing it wrong. And we have various laws and regulations in this regard (in the rural area I lived in recently, a farmer was completely within their rights to kill your dog if it threatened his livestock).

So yeah, I have no problem with people airing their legitimate grievances about dogs and their owners, urban, rural, wherever. But if you just don't like dogs (and some of the comments in this thread definitely seem to lean that way) then I'm going to suggest you're not exactly my idea of a good neighbour either. Because yeah, it does feel a lot like just not liking children. Obviously, you're allowed to feel that way -- just don't expect me to want to hear about it.
posted by philip-random at 8:53 AM on April 17, 2023 [3 favorites]

Just echoing the general sentiment that shitty comments like this make it very hard to discuss an actually very interesting article about the impact of dogs on beaches. It's really disappointing.

It's tone deaf, in the same way it's tone deaf to come into a discussion about children and talk about how terrible parents are. The people you are talking about are right here in the room with you; it's not that hard to talk about the issue (e.g., impacts caused by both leashed and unleashed dogs) without being actively rude to the people you are talking to.

I grew up really disliking dogs because so many of the dogs I interacted with when I was a kid were terrible dogs that would try to bite us. When we saw a dog walking towards us, we'd pick up rocks, and start throwing them if the dog came too close. So I completely sympathize with people who've had bad dog interactions (and bad dog-owner interactions). But there are more productive and less productive ways to have that discussion.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:57 AM on April 17, 2023 [4 favorites]

canine-normativity is a thing

as far as I can tell as a term it was actually pretty much coined in this thread? Google finds one, joking prior mention (it’s a photo of a cat). Should I be searching JSTOR?
posted by atoxyl at 8:58 AM on April 17, 2023 [5 favorites]

Just echoing the general sentiment that shitty comments like this make it very hard to discuss an actually very interesting article about the impact of dogs on beaches. It's really disappointing.

Speaking just for myself as a user of the site, I'd encourage anyone to comment about the links/article if that's what'd they like to talk about.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:59 AM on April 17, 2023

If folks hate dogs to the extent that they don't like sharing public space with them, maybe it's better to just take a pass on dog threads?

As well as having to pass on public spaces due to the dogs?

For some of us, it's not a dislike, it's an actual phobia, sometimes borne of having been subject to dog attacks.

But I guess that just makes us bad neighbours and bad people, eh.
posted by Dysk at 9:02 AM on April 17, 2023 [9 favorites]

Man, I hate dogs, and even I'm surprised by the tone here.
posted by kevinbelt at 9:03 AM on April 17, 2023 [1 favorite]

I think the two things are generally linked because human ownership of dogs heavily relates to how dogs interact with the natural environment. Several people in the thread have used the justification of "well humans cause more damage to beaches so it's hypocritical to talk about how dogs damage them!" which kind of proves the point. Dogs are most often there because of humans, the damage they cause is an extension of human actions, not separate from it. The same logic of letting your dog off leash in a public park in a city leads to a dog off leash in a sensitive wildlife area.

For the record, I like dogs, provided that they are being kept under control and not causing problems, but the ones that aren't are the ones that have left the biggest impressions on me.
posted by Ferreous at 9:04 AM on April 17, 2023 [3 favorites]

Scrolling up, I can see that following this thread through Recent Activity has been beneficial to me, as I've managed to miss quite a lot of stuff I'd rather miss.

There's some sort of clever analogy to be made between the impacts of unleashed dogs in a natural ecosystem and unleashed opinions in a thread ecosystem, but I don't think I'm quite clever enough to manage it.
posted by Not A Thing at 9:46 AM on April 17, 2023 [2 favorites]

Is the trajectory of this thread in general why you can no longer request someone act in a more responsible way in person without them trying to kill you in response?
posted by wondermouse at 9:51 AM on April 17, 2023 [1 favorite]

The expectation that dogs should be on leads even in parks is a very USian thing and I don't understand how dog owners (or their dogs) tolerate it. I occasionally make the mistake of visiting a place with such a rule and it's completely miserable.

It's not a USian thing, it's a responsible thing. Dogs are highly reactive animals with a potential for violence. Maybe the UK should catch up?

And I say that as a dog lover who has one and fosters over a dozen a year (I take on many of the hard cases and have an extremely high success rate for rehabilitating them). I've been fairly badly bitten when someone's off-leash dog attacked one of my on-leash fosters. My dogs get regular trips to the dog park, where they can run off-leash and interact with dogs and people who have opted into being around strange dogs, and stay on leash anywhere else. That's basic common sense, even if I'm going through a neighborhood park. People have allergies, people have phobias, people have had bad experiences. Parks are shared, communal space for people.

I've never met a kind, thoughtful person with a shitty, rude dog.

The original comment has been deleted but the context was something along the lines that any dog who tries to scavenge for food or puts their nose in someone's crotch is a shitty, rude dog.

That's just what some dogs do. It's in their nature. They're not just weirdly shaped, slightly dim humans that will behave in human ways, they're their own thing. Which is why we keep them on leashes in public, so they don't do those things.
posted by Candleman at 10:04 AM on April 17, 2023 [24 favorites]

When I was putting together this post (yay first post!) I was trying to frame things in a way that pointed towards harm reduction and promoting awareness around dogs on a beach. I like dogs and think they are great, and am aware of the harm they can entail/cause for a myriad of reasons. The same thing can be said for so many things in life.

I thought about trying to add more about the ecological impact of humans on beaches but as soon as I did, I got into a whole lot more than was reasonable and enough for another post. Which is to say that of course the level of ecological devastation on beaches is largely humans, how could it not be?

The initial idea was to mimic the internal structure of the Atlantic article by posting as much of the information as possible to flesh out the idea in a sort of wayward home for footnotes.

I think it's important to focus on getting people talking about the restoration/creation of social contracts necessary to maintain healthy, bio-diverse commons. Dogs play a unique role in many systems, but along with many domesticates have a high impact on the environment, and the lack of regulation/established norms on a dogs behavior can lead to disproportionate impact on delicate ecosystems.

As there has been a significant growth in pet ownership during 2020-2022, as well as human population growth in the last 100-200 years, we aren't having enough conversations that say "Maybe there is a difference between the dangers of scale for literally everything we do."

I really want to make sure that this isn't a shame based approach, although if anyone wants to, I get that it works for some people. I just want people to say "oh, huh, yeah maybe we should have more protected spaces for delicate bio-diverse commons" because every single year we learn more about how many systems are connected in weird ways that we didn't expect and the cascade effect of single species loss can be devastating to an environment. And more importantly, to our ability to actually live in those environments long term.

I think that starting these conversations can cause people to look into why their impact changes things, so that they can demand that the perpetrators of devastating scales of change (corporate entities/governments) actually make changes in ways that are easy to understand and consistently spoken to, in a way that imagines a better future that benefits us all. If it just causes people to feel shame for things like having their dog off the leash, that isn't reasonable.
posted by burntbook at 10:16 AM on April 17, 2023 [24 favorites]

It is remiss not to mention that dogs hunt, chase, scavenge and dig in ways that humans are socialized not to, with an efficiency that they are bred for, in a way that will specifically alter a habitat for the local wildlife. Domesticate breeds tend to domesticate land. They tend to de-wild, tame, or "civilize" spaces (This is a contentious statement, and incomplete. Arguably the kind of domestication depends on the style of culture imposing it) If we want to keep wild, bio-diverse spaces, we have to protect them. This means from humans, machines, spills and dogs, rats and cats, mostly.

The USA has vast reserves of publicly held wild spaces, vs the UK which has almost entirely been cultivated for centuries and lacks the same scale of wild spaces. The need for regulatory function to protect spaces from Western human nature is significant, IMO, but doable. I just like knowing that are at least trying anything to protect these spaces from animals bred for hunting, digging and chasing.
posted by burntbook at 10:17 AM on April 17, 2023 [5 favorites]

If it just causes people to feel shame for things like having their dog off the leash, that isn't reasonable.

I mean in a way it is similar to having outdoor cats by choice or driving irresponsibly in that they are things people should experience shame for doing. We can talk about large corporate or governmental entities in the scale of climate change and environmental damage but personal conduct that affects the environment and other people, especially in situations like beach damage from dogs are almost entirely from individual actors vs large corporations. Unless you want the solution to be incredibly strictly enforced regulations on where pets can be and where they must be leashed which could be a top down things but I don't think most people who own pets would like that.
posted by Ferreous at 10:30 AM on April 17, 2023 [3 favorites]

Right now, I am in a fishing village in Mexico. If I walk out onto the street, I won't make it 10 meters before I come across a dog with no leash, no collar, no apparent owner, and probably not spayed or neutered. This dog is a classic village dog, and there are many of them around here. There are also pets in the USian mode, but they make up a minority of dog interactions you'll have.

Most of the village dogs live lives that would seem harsh to a US pet owner. They get injured, they die young, they lack medical care, and they deal with rock-throwing humans. A good way to get them to leave you alone is to act slightly aggressive. My dog, which is a rescue from this population, took years before she would be in the same room as me when I was holding a broom.

There is a miles-long beach here, which is used by sea turtles. The local conservationists absolutely regard the dogs as a problem vis a vis the sea turtles, and have for decades. I never considered the impact on other wildlife, but I'm sure it's a thing. There are a ton of beach birds, and the local starveling dogs would absolutely like a bite of them, if they could.

In this context, talking about leashed dogs and bad dog owners in US and European urban areas seems absurd to me. It's just completely orthogonal to the interventions that people are actually doing here, and alien to the dog culture around here. Pet owners leash their dogs to keep them from getting hit by cars, or from picking up bad habits from the village dogs. The interventions they have been doing here are things like spay/neuter programs, education about beach conservation, and getting the local strays adopted (usually to people in the US and Canada, which is a whole other potentially problematic discussion). These programs are run by a mix of locals, expats, and surfers.

If I can believe the links above, it is important to talk about places that are not the US and Europe because those are the places where the most dog impact is happening.
posted by surlyben at 10:47 AM on April 17, 2023 [10 favorites]

But why would they read the article when there are fellow posters who aren't feeling the appropriate amount of shame? /s
posted by Jarcat at 11:08 AM on April 17, 2023

it is important to talk about places that are not the US and Europe because those are the places where the most dog impact is happening.

Perhaps. But I suspect if you factor in the pet food purchased for pet dogs and the impact producing it has, maybe not, unless the number of village dogs is exploding for some reason. Presumably the dogs have been there for a fair time before the numbers of various wild animals started tumbling.

For myself I think it's that we've pushed wildlife all over the place into such a state of fragility that even things that might not have made an impact 50 years ago can be tipping factors and that's why we need to take every precaution we can such as leashing dogs even in areas it might not have been essential 10 or 20 or so years ago. But overall it won't make much difference unless we decide that wild life has the right to exist on this world as well as us, and make space for it. Like keeping cats indoors it all seems like tinkering at the edge - worthwhile but only making a slight difference overall.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 11:08 AM on April 17, 2023 [1 favorite]

The expectation that dogs should be on leads even in parks is a very USian thing
No, it's a thing here in Australia too. Our local government has laws prohibiting dogs from being off-leash in public except in designated areas. Quite rightly, people have an expectation that they won't be forced to interact with dogs in any way in public spaces. As a dog owner, I support that right and ensure nobody is forced to do so with regard to my dog, ever. Even if we approach another person walking a leashed dog, I don't allow mine to get anywhere near them unless the other person makes the first approach. The only time my dog is off the leash is where there is no possibility of her encountering anyone (or in the local 'dog park' - a fenced-off area designed for that purpose). I don't trust that anyone else's dog is going to be 'friendly' any more than I expect anyone to trust mine. In the end, dogs are ruled by their instincts and it's up to owners to ensure their dog doesn't put anyone in harm's way, physically or otherwise.

The local government also has laws prohibiting more than two dogs in any household except by special permit, which comes with conditions, including that every dog must be de-sexed.

I agree that there has been a shift in attitudes towards dogs stemming from 'COVID times' because so many people found themselves at home all the time and so got the dog they'd always wanted (or as an excuse to be out on the street during lockdowns). This includes changing laws relating to tenancy, where it's no longer permitted to refuse to rent to someone who has a dog, or to charge extra when they do. The downside of this is that there's been an explosion of dogs being dumped at shelters or just plain abandoned and shelters are full of dogs that have never been properly trained or socialised.

There's definitely a potential for serious impact on wildlife where domestic animals run free and also some impact even where they're contained. The article doesn't say anything about whether the mentioned impact is caused by domestic animals or 'wild', but I wouldn't be surprised if the overwhelming majority of this is animals that were once domesticated, but are no longer. Domestic animals need to remain domesticated and, given that its humans who domesticated them, they have a responsibility to keep them that way. Ensuring we have 'more protected spaces for delicate bio-diverse commons' is important and one of the things we need to do to make that happen is to keep non-native destructive animals out of them entirely. Definitely dogs and cats, but mostly we need to keep the most destructive species of all away - humans.
posted by dg at 2:53 PM on April 17, 2023 [5 favorites]

Is my dog the only one who can get off her leash, so she goes from an acceptable dog to a lousy dog in about 3 seconds? To prevent that I have to buy ones that have leg harnesses and chokers and all sorts of extra tie ons that are a real pain and take like 5 solid minutes to put on her.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:38 AM on April 18, 2023

I understand people's frustrations but I think it's nice to read some others vent frustrations about dogs. So many spaces act like you're a monster for not unequivocally loving and excusing all dogs that it can feel almost forbidden to post anything less-than-positive about dogs. People and dogs should stay home as much as possible.
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:07 AM on April 18, 2023

What, exactly, does "people and dogs should stay home as much as possible" mean? Is that a COVID thing? Is it "people *with* dogs should stay home as much as possible"? I'm having a hard time reading that statement as anything other than extremely anti-social. Like, not just asocial, but against society.
posted by sagc at 8:15 AM on April 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

Against society!
posted by tiny frying pan at 8:21 AM on April 18, 2023

I mean, what else do you call the blanket statement that people and dogs should stay home as much as possible? Pretty sure society can't be *completely* conducted by only leaving my apartment when I can't survive otherwise.
posted by sagc at 8:22 AM on April 18, 2023

I think this is really interesting. Thanks for posting it. I don't currently have a dog but I live along an environmentally sensitive shoreline with lots of migratory birds.

Most dog owners around here are pretty responsible and use fenced dog parks for off-leash activities...but also the (lake, not ocean) beach/lakeside trail because it's open and less intrusive (and one of them is not really that used other than by local people so there aren't a lot of people on it.) I'm always aware of out of control dogs both from having owned a reactive dog but also having broken my wrist when a puppy burst onto a bike path. However, I honestly have not had an issue on my almost-daily walks in years and years (except poo), so go pet owners of the neighbourhood.

That said, the environmental impact is important. There aren't signs asking people to keep their dogs leashed along the shoreline to protect the environment, so that's something to bring up with the right authorities/bodies (which I think wouldn't be the city in this case but our regional conservation authority...which is probably right on it, but never hurts to find out.)

Right now almost all the dogs are leashed because there's avian flu going through the waterfowl population and a dog already tested positive for it. :( So these dangers sometimes cut both ways.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:29 AM on April 18, 2023 [2 favorites]

>What, exactly, does "people and dogs should stay home as much as possible" mean?

People going places for their own pleasure is incredibly destructive. We're never going to stop them completely from traipsing around helping destroy the world wherever they go, hence the tempered plea of "as much as possible." There are good, important reasons to go places and there are selfish unnecessary ones. Most people don't have a good reason to go to the beach besides "they want to, for fun." The beach is home for billions who'd all do well without people and their entourage of consumption stomping around their abodes.
posted by GoblinHoney at 8:44 AM on April 18, 2023

Ok, but that's "don't damage beaches", or maybe more generally "people should stay in their built environment and not create more". I don't really know how you get from that to "shouldn't leave home".

Also, who gets to decide whether, say, going for a hike is morally permissible or not? What does "as much as possible" actually mean in practice? I'm honestly curious what you're envisioning here, since it seems so difficult achieve and such a limiting standard of behavior.
posted by sagc at 8:50 AM on April 18, 2023

Also, who gets to decide whether, say, going for a hike is morally permissible or not?

the knife missiles?
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 8:56 AM on April 18, 2023 [5 favorites]

Username checks out!
posted by sagc at 8:56 AM on April 18, 2023

People going places for their own pleasure is incredibly destructive. We're never going to stop them completely from traipsing around helping destroy the world wherever they go, hence the tempered plea of "as much as possible." There are good, important reasons to go places and there are selfish unnecessary ones. Most people don't have a good reason to go to the beach besides "they want to, for fun."

At the risk of being too meta, one of the fascinating things to me about discourse here is these kinds of extremely fringe but strongly-expressed statements. Discussions about children, pets, and covid seem to really bring it out.

To the point of the comment, I'd argue that people traipsing around (with or without dogs) is very small-potatoes in terms of ecological damage, vs commercial fishing, sand mining, off-shore and near-shore oil and gas exploration, etc.
posted by Dip Flash at 8:59 AM on April 18, 2023 [11 favorites]

Metafilter: Most people don't have a good reason to go to the beach besides "they want to, for fun."
posted by grahamparks at 9:18 AM on April 18, 2023 [6 favorites]

I'm going to run around all day and yell "against society!" about all I disagree with
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:50 AM on April 18, 2023 [2 favorites]

I was using it to distinguish between asocial and antisocial. Normally, not being social is what we'd call "antisocial", even if it's not very "anti". Saying people shouldn't go outside for fun is beyond that, and I wanted to reinforce just how anti-social it is.

Do you... Disagree with the phrase? Have I said something wrong?
posted by sagc at 9:56 AM on April 18, 2023

Just make sure you're not running around and yelling outside your home unless it is necessary.
posted by eponym at 9:56 AM on April 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

>To the point of the comment, I'd argue that people traipsing around (with or without dogs) is very small-potatoes in terms of ecological damage, vs commercial fishing, sand mining, off-shore and near-shore oil and gas exploration, etc.

I'd say those things should be minimized as well. I also don't buy the anti-social angle at all, you can be social without driving a pollution machine to one of the very few places where non-human animals can try not being extinct for a little while longer. People are incredibly selfish, the notion of not doing something you want to do, for any reason, is really offensive to most people, hence the extinction event.
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:12 AM on April 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

You can see, though, how "don't drive your car to the beach" is a rather different statement from "People and dogs should stay home as much as possible."

Like, do you believe that people leaving home should be minimized as much as possible? Do you think people shouldn't be in nature at all? Or do you just think we should be mindful of the impacts of our leisure activities?

That's what I've been trying to pin down - whether you actually do think there's an imperative for "People and dogs should stay home as much as possible.", and what that would mean in terms of how people spend their time/interact. Or was the original sentence supposed to limit things to beaches? Even there, I think you'd have a hard time with "Only people with good reasons on beaches! No, wanting to enjoy time in the outdoors is not good enough!", but at least it's limited in scope.
posted by sagc at 10:16 AM on April 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

They have outdoors right outside your house, probably, enjoy it there, where it's already ruined perfectly for human enjoyment. People need to eat, play, work, and see each other. We are an invasive species that cannot be stopped by other animals. We should stay to the areas of this planet we have already destroyed for our benefit and try to avoid what precious few areas are left unmarred by human development. We already have most of this world under our concrete, I'm not thrilled about people going back and forth all over those areas all the time either, pollutin and consuming and spreading misery along the way, but at least those spaces are already lost causes. It's worse when it's going to the areas where wild animals still try to scrape by. Beach, Mountain, National Park, Jungle, Artic, Tundra, leave some for the rest of earthlings, why the hell does anyone think they need to be there, that we should smile and support their endeavor?

Full disclosure: Haven't eaten today and my earth-first perspective is likely to change into a fuckearth perspective after lunch, where I'd argue people should go anywhere they want -- and with their beasts too if they'd like so long as they have a good time, fuck it, the world is yours get it while its hot.
posted by GoblinHoney at 10:38 AM on April 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

I mean, with that restatement, I more or less agree. I do think there's value in allowing people access and experience of nature, in ways that account for and manage human impacts, but I do agree that it shouldn't be a free-for-all.

Also, I think there's a bit of a fallacy of the excluded middle, in terms of there being either destroyed areas or untouched areas. There are lots of places doing work to allow both humans and animals to use wild spaces.
posted by sagc at 10:42 AM on April 18, 2023 [2 favorites]

GoblinHoney, you need to read some Robin Wall Kimmerer. The damage white humans have done is not the only paradigm of people-nature interactions.
posted by Press Butt.on to Check at 10:46 AM on April 18, 2023

I'm going to run around all day and yell "against society!" about all I disagree with

You're not going to do better than the objectivists. Point your cigarette at the whim-worshipping muscle mystics and tell them they're anti-life and anti-mind! A is A!
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 11:12 AM on April 18, 2023

Mod note: A few comments deleted, please avoid turning the thread into a 1-on-1 discussion.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:56 PM on April 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

Hey GCU, I'm afraid I don't know what any of that last comment means.

(I really don't know what it means...not sure why me expressing that was deleted when I'm honestly confused )
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:19 PM on April 18, 2023

(I mean, no one has to explain themselves, but now I'm not sure when it's okay to ask for clarification in a thread vs. MeMail, figured it was fine to say you don't understand in thread but maybe not)
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:23 PM on April 18, 2023

It's a joke about how dour objectivists are.
posted by sagc at 1:45 PM on April 18, 2023

That...is not quite an explanation but maybe someone smarter than me will get it, thanks!
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:49 PM on April 18, 2023

I don't at all agree with 'people and dogs should stay home as much as possible', but I do absolutely agree with the principle that there should be large areas of the planet that we just stay away from and let nature be nature. I have no patience at all with the viewpoint that any land untouched by human fuckery is 'wasted space', which seems to be more and more prevalent.
posted by dg at 2:05 PM on April 18, 2023

We already have most of this world under our concrete

This is so incredibly far from true. You're looking at a a couple of percentage points if you include tarmac and asphalt in "concrete", and that's if you exclude the ocean.
posted by Dysk at 2:36 PM on April 18, 2023 [2 favorites]

Hey GCU, I'm afraid I don't know what any of that last comment means.

Someone before had jokingly said that they wanted to use "Against society!" as a generic, all purpose denunciation. I was just riffing on that -- objectivists were really REALLY R E A L L Y good at denouncing everyone else and their language for doing so is amusingly insular.

That's all. It was at most topic-tangential.
posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 2:38 PM on April 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

Cool - I appreciate the explanation, gotta do more reading.

"A is A" and "muscle mystics" is gonna be floating in my head a while.
posted by tiny frying pan at 2:52 PM on April 18, 2023

Beach, Mountain, National Park, Jungle, Artic, Tundra, leave some for the rest of earthlings, why the hell does anyone think they need to be there, that we should smile and support their endeavor?

Leaving aside other points, it's important to recognize that all the ecosystems you list have had humans living in them (and actively managing the landscapes) since the dawn of humankind (and for areas in the north, continuously inhabited since the last ice age). The only reason US national parks are uninhabited is that the people who had been living there since time immemorial were variously forced to move and/or killed, and weren't allowed to move back.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:24 PM on April 18, 2023 [11 favorites]