Tag: dog owners
There might not be any town as intent — you might even say obsessed — with wiping out dog poop as Brunete, Spain.
First, officials in the town on the outskirts of Madrid launched a social awareness campaign, aimed at encouraging pet owners to pick up after their dogs.
Part of it included a remote control pile of poop on wheels, which approached citizens bearing the message “Don’t leave me, pick me up!”
“The amount of dog poo on our streets dropped considerably as a result,” a town spokesman is quoted as saying in this article.
When “volume” started rising again, the town opted for a sneakier approach — though it, too, has an in-your-face element.
In February of this year, officials in the town of 10,100 assigned 20 volunteers to patrol the streets in search of dog owners who don’t pick up after their dogs.
Upon seeing an offense, the undercover volunteers approach the owners and strike up a casual conversation — not mentioning the poop, just feigning interest in the dog and asking about its name and breed.
Once the dog walker departs, the volunteer would pick up the dog poop and put it in a box. Then, using the town’s database of registered dogs, they find out the address of the dog walker. Then they’d deliver the surprise package by hand to the pet owner’s home, along with an official warning.
If that weren’t embarassing enough, they film the reunions between dog owners and their dog’s poop.
Brunete Town Hall estimates the program has reduced the amount of unpicked up dog waste by 70 percent.
Officials aren’t sure whether it’s the threat of the fine, receiving a package of poop, or getting humiliated on camera that’s doing the trick, but they say the program seems to be working.
Posted by jwoestendiek June 7th, 2013 under Muttsblog, videos.
Tags: animals, brunete, campaign, clean up, control, deliver, dog, dog owners, dog poop, dog walkers, dogs, feces, fines, home, pets, pick-up, pile, poo, poop, remote, scoop, sidewalks, spain, streets, town, warnings, waste
In another study buttressing the belief that people tend to get dogs that match their personalities, British researchers say they concluded that disagreeable people prefer to own aggressive dogs.
The study, by a research team from the University of Leicester’s School of Psychology, was based on personality tests, filled out by participants.
Participating humans, we mean.
For the dogs, researchers seemed to mostly fall back on old stereotypes.
Researchers say they found that younger people and people with low levels of agreeableness were more likely to prefer dog breeds that were rated more aggressive. As examples of those breeds, they cited bull terriers or boxers.
Here’s where I’m going to have to be disagreeable. While I’m certain a trained psychologist with a clipboard and a questionnaire can confirm disagreeability in humans, I have my doubts about their labeling dogs aggressive, epecially if, as it seems, that is based entirely on perceptions, which are often misperceptions, about breeds.
Did the scientists actually meet any disagreeable people and their aggressive dogs? (Perhaps it was wisest not to.) Or did they just work from a checklist of allegedly aggressive dogs — Rottweilers? Akitas? Pit bulls? Dobermans. German shepherds?
I don’t dispute the conclusion the study reached; it seems somewhat obvious. I just question what they base the label of “aggressive” dog on. If it’s solely breed, and perceptions of breeds, that’s not science; it’s stereotyping.
And you’ve got to wonder too — assuming there is a connection between disagreeable people and aggressive dogs, whether dogs belonging to disagreeable people started out that way, or became aggressive while living disagreeable people?
Humans generally make dogs aggressive — sometimes intentionally, sometimes accidentally. An aggressive dog usually has a disagreeable human behind it. (Check out some of the comments we’ve received from supporters of dogfighting for proof of that.)
According to the scientists, disagreeable people are typically less concerned about others’ well-being and may be suspicious, unfriendly and competitive.
The study, published in the June edition of the journal Anthrozoos, found no link between liking an aggressive breed of dog and delinquent behavior, or that having an aggressive type of dog is a “status display,” lead researcher Vincent Egan said in a university news release:
“This type of study is important, as it shows assumptions are not the whole picture. It is assumed owners of aggressive dogs … or dogs perceived as aggressive … are antisocial show-offs.”
If one is relying on “dogs perceived as aggressive” to build their database, isn’t one making some assumptions oneself?
(Photos: We don’t think Rush Limbaugh has a dog, so we went on Google and picked him out a Chihuahua. No slur to Chihuahuas is intended)
Posted by jwoestendiek May 31st, 2012 under Muttsblog.
Tags: aggressive, animals, behavior, breeds, disagreeable, dog owners, dogs, humans, match, misperceptions, perceptions, personality, pets, pyschologists, reflect, research, study, university of leicester
There’s a heated debate going on about yellow snow over at “Unleashed,” the Baltimore Sun pets blog.
It all got started when a reader — seeing no art whatsover in what happens when hot yellow dog urine splashes onto cold and pure white snow — expressed her displeasure with befouled snow, and went so far as to suggest dog owners chisel, collect and dispose of the icy yellow matter.
“I’m not a dog owner, but I can’t be the only person to be grossed out while trying to walk in Baltimore right now,” wrote Eeda Wallbank. “After the snow last week there are still many areas where the sidewalk or street is the only cleared space for folks to take their dogs out for their business. Most people are still being polite and at least picking the poo up, but the urine is just disgusting.
“The dog goes in the only cleared walk space and urinates, then it freezes. So everyone else has to walk through or attempt to go around these ‘puddles.’ Heaven forbid someone actually slip on ice or snow and fall into greater contact. I shudder everytime I see the yellow snow and thank god I don’t have kids to worry about (my cats are my babies, but they stay firmly inside) … Dog owners carry around bags for poo, what would be so wrong with attempting to remove this frozen urine? Or at least have a small shovel to clear the walk space a little?”
That led to a flood/flurry of comments. Among those that poured in were some siding with Ms. Wallbank, a few suggesting she “get a life,” and many asking if society doesn’t have bigger things to worry about than yellow snow.
Scooping poop is one thing. But I don’t think we need yellow snow laws — even if it does offend the sensibilities of Ms. Wallbank and others. It’s a fact of life. It passes (twice, in fact). Until the snow melts, step around it, add it to the list of unavoidable wintertime inconveniences, or maybe even try and view it as modern art — a canine, working by instinct, on a vast blank canvas, provided by nature .
It’s a little like that, with one big difference. With yellow snow, everybody knows exactly what the artist was trying to express.
(Artwork: “Yellow Snow,” by John Woestendiek)
Posted by jwoestendiek February 17th, 2010 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animals, art, blank, blizzard, canvas, dog owners, dogs, feces, hygeine, natural, nature, offended, offensive, ohmidog!, parks, pee, pets, sanitation, scoop, snow, snowfall, urine, waste, weather, white, winter, yellow, yellow snow
An angry tenant in a luxury condominium that backs up to the Park Slope dog run in New York’s Washington Park has been hurling eggs at dogs and owners who use the run at night, according to the New York Post.
“Before I knew it — ‘whack’ on my shoulder and ‘splat’ on the ground,” said Ilene Cohen, 55, who was hit by an egg three weeks ago. “I looked up, but I didn’t see anybody.”
Cohen said her black Labrador, Ace, wasn’t making any noise, but other dogs were barking at the time.
Kimberly Maier, the executive director of the Old Stone House, a historic center inside the park, said Cohen’s egging was the second of three aerial assaults, which were first reported by the website Brownstoner.com.
“It’s not a group of people doing it. It’s probably one person,” Maier said.
The condominium board has notified the local police precinct about the incidents, Maier said.
The 12-story luxury building known as Novo 343 opened less than two years ago — about the same time the dog run did.
Posted by jwoestendiek January 25th, 2010 under Muttsblog.
Tags: barking, brownstoner, condominium, dog owners, dog run, dogs, egg, eggs, hurled, new york, novo 343, park, throwing, thrown, walking
It’s a familiar chain of events in many a city — a particular neighborhood, usually by virtue of its location, emerges as desirable. Young and affluent people move in. Real estate prices rise and, with them, taxes. The old neighborhood bars get upscaled. Mom and pop shops close down. Oldtimers start leaving. A Whole Foods opens. Then you step in dog poop.
The fancy word for it is gentrification — and while dogs are, for the most part, innocent bystanders (byrunners? bypoopers?) they often seem to surface as the issue around which gentrifications wars play out.
I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between a recent story out of Venice, California, appearing in the Santa Monica Daily Press, and our situation right here in South Baltimore.
The story looked at a growing conflict between long-time black and Latino members of a Venice neighborhood and affluent newcomers and their dogs. Long-time residents are complaining about the presence of off-leash dogs in the park.
“When families in the neighborhood see the blatant disregard for the law and there is signage throughout the park, it sends a message that they’re above the law and privileged,” said Lydia Ponce, who serves on the Oakwood Park Advisory Board, “It sets up a cultural divide.”
Dog owners, meanwhile, say they are simply seeking a place for their dogs to run — an activity that, properly monitored, impinges on no one’s rights or space. “We’re law-abiding citizens and we don’t want to get tickets for exercising dogs in the morning,” said Dr. Douglas Stockel, who has lived in Venice for five years.
Posted by jwoestendiek June 17th, 2009 under Muttsblog.
Tags: baltimore, california, cultural divide, divisions, dog owners, dog parks, dogs, gentrification, gentrified, gentrify, issues, leash law, neighborhoods, off-leash, parks, perceptions, residents, stereotypes, tensions, venice
Dogs bark when something’s amiss. We humans sign petitions. The time has come to do a little of both.
Not to many working people have the leeway to attend a 10 a.m. City Council meeting, but for those who can, Tuesday’s meeting in city hall represents a rare opportunity to let city leaders know not just that their $1,000 fine for an off leash dog is out of line, but that the time has come to make this a more dog-friendly city.
How? By coming through with promised dog parks, by instituting off leash hours, at least on an experimental basis at a city park or two, and by not dumping on that substantial population of voters that has dogs.
At tomorrow’s meeting the city will take up a proposal to reduce the fine. Also introduced will be an amendment authored by council member William Cole that would allow the city’s director of recreation and parks to enact off leash hours at city parks — something that currently can’t be done because of the leash law. Cole’s amendment would exempt city-approved off leash hours from the law.
Of course, that doesn’t mean off leash hours will be approved, only that they can be.
Cole said he expects the fine reduction and the off-leash authorization to eventually be approved by the council.
“Yes, I believe that both will get support for a majority of the Council,” he said. “There appears to be rather broad support for the off-leash language, but I haven’t started counting votes.”
Tuesday’s meeting is a hearing (on Bill 09-0322) before the Judiciary & Legislative Investigations Committee. The committee is chaired by Councilman Jim Kraft, and its other members are Robert Curran, Rikki Spector, Agnes Welch and Cole.
The meeting is in the City Council Chambers on the 4th floor of City Hall. (A picture ID required for admission to City Hall.)
Posted by jwoestendiek April 26th, 2009 under Muttsblog.
Tags: baltimore, bark, city, city council, city hall, designated hours, dog, dog friendly, dog owners, dog parks, dogs, fine, hearing, law, leash free, leash law, loose, parks, penalty, petition, recreation and parks, reduce, running, signatures, unite, unleashed, william cole
Rain or shine, $1,000 fines or no $1,000 fines, The March for the Animals takes place tomorrow at Baltimore’s Druid Hill Park — and what better way to show this sometimes less than dog-friendly city how much you care about your dog and all dogs.
Not to tarnish the Maryland SPCA’s largest fundraiser of the year with politics, but it is an opportunity — in addition to having fun and raising money for homeless animals — to take stock of our numbers, and realize that for every four paws pounding the pavement tomorrow, there’s usually one or two registered voters behind them.
It was revealed that the city had raised the fines for unleashed dogs ten-fold, to $1,000, with little effort made to inform us about it, either before or after the fact. And this in a city that has yet to open a single government-funded dog park. (Several council members say they plan to try and revise the law and lower the fine Monday.)
It’s time for dog lovers to unite, and for “dog park” groups to unite — again, we use the term loosely, since the city has yet to open an official dog park. (The only one that exists is in Canton, and it was built by private donations.) The March for the Animals is an excellent opportunity to let the networking begin, and, of course, the ohmidog! booth will welcome any rabble-rousing activists who care to gather there.
Again, the day isn’t about politics, but there’s no reason we can’t at least make initial contact, and exchange emails and phone numbers, amid all the fun, festivities and fund-raising.
At the ohmidog! booth, we’ll be holding contests (free Furminators will be among the prizes), bringing back our popular “Kiss My Ace” kissing booth, and offering our new hand-made, all-natural dog treats, “ohmidog-O’s” – all profits from the sale of which will be turned over to the Maryland SPCA.
The march runs from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.; registration begins at 9:00 a.m. Sunshine is predicted in the morning, with rain expected to hold off until later in the day, so the event won’t likely be the soggy affair it was last year.
It’s still not too late to raise pledges for the March, the Maryland SPCA says, by asking your friends, family members and co-workers to sponsor you and your dog. Bring your pledges and donations to the event. With at least $30 in donations, you receive a doggie bandana and goody bag. With $40 and over, you also receive a March for the Animals T-shirt.
Among the day’s highlights:
Posted by jwoestendiek April 18th, 2009 under Muttsblog.
Tags: agility, animal communicator, animals, baltimore, booth, city, city council, contests, demonstrations, disc, dog, dog lovers, dog owners, dog parks, dog people, dogs, Druid Hill Park, event, fines, fundraising, homeless dogs, leash law, March for the Animals, maryland, maryland spca, ohmidog!, parks, pets, politics, training, unite, unleashed, vendors
City Councilman Ed Reisinger has agreed to meet with concerned dog owners Thursday evening at Riverside Park to discuss the city’s ten-fold increase on fines for off-leash dogs and failing to pick up waste.
While the legislation went through all the proper channels, the city did little to notify dog owners of the increased cost of the violations before launching a series of sweeps in parks this spring. Animal control officers issue the tickets, while police stand by.
The meeting is both open, and open-air. It’s scheduled for Thursday, April 16, at 7 p.m. in the Riverside Park pavilion.
In addition to concerns that the penalties are exorbitant, some dog owners feel well-behaved dogs under voice control should be given a chance to run off leash — either in particular parts of the park, or at certain hours of the day.
Reisinger has graciously agreed to hear those concerns, and explain the rationale behind the increased penalties.
Baltimore has only one dog park, in Canton, which was built with donations and private funds. It’s the only place in the city, other than your own property, where your dog can legally be off leash.
The city plans to open its first city-funded dog park at Latrobe Park in Locust Point later this year, and Mayor Dixon has promised more, but a recent round of budget cutbacks may put their future in doubt.
Posted by jwoestendiek April 14th, 2009 under Muttsblog.
Tags: baltimore, citations, city council, concerns, dog owners, dog parks, dogs, edward reisinger, fines, leash, leash law, mayor, meeting, off-leash, one thousand dollars, parks, penalties, raids, reisinger, riverside park, sheila dixon, sweeps, tickets
When it comes to the “K-Rosco Utility Jacket,” custom made for dog walking, I’m torn, which is something that’s probably never going to happen to the jacket … what with its “rip-stop, wind-resistant and waterproof fabric and special seam sealing.”
The yuppie in me wants one. The cynical/rational/broke side of me — not so much.
A special coat for dog walking? What could be sillier? But then I think about all the pocket shuffling I go through on the average trip to the dog park — where did I put the leash? My keys? The cell phone? The poop bags? The treats? The water bottle?
Chances are, some of those are still in the other jacket back home, still hanging on the hook.
My general procedure, when heading to the park with the dog, is to pick the coat that’s the dirtiest and wear it, for it is only going to get dirtier. I won’t mention any names, but there are dogs that like to jump up on me. Usually though, I ask for it. Once there, I forget what I have in which pocket. The only sure rule is that the item I require will be in the last pocket I search.
So yes, Easter Bunny, I would probably make excellent use of the K-Rosco Utility Jacket with it’s everything-in-its-place sensibility, not to mention its “versatility, functionality and fashion.” I would probably make use of all four jackets it converts into — one for winter, spring summer and fall.
I’m quite sure it would protect me from ”the bitter chill of winter (full jacket), unpredictable rains of spring and fall (lightweight shell), to the heat of summer (lightweight vest) — and that its “reflective piping” will increase my odds of getting across the street without being mowed down on those late evening excursions.
After a brief learning period, I’m sure I’d get to the point where I would know at once to go to the specially designed cargo pocket for an extractable poop pick-up bag, to the pocket with the removable plastic pocket liner for the dog treats, and where to locate my retractable coil key clip, and mesh water bottle holder, and so on. And the time might come as well that I needed to make use of its belt, which converts into an extra leash, or can be rigged for hands-free dog walking.
The dogwalker’s jacket is made by Let’s Go Designs, Inc. which says it is “dedicated to offering products that enhance the relationship and responsibility between dog owners and their ‘best friends.’” A noble cause — even if it does mean we have come to this: Not just special clothing for our dogs, but special clothing we wear when we are with our dogs.
Then there’s this: It sells for $265.
It seems absurd, on one hand. On the other, I want it.
Posted by jwoestendiek March 27th, 2009 under Muttsblog.
Tags: clothing, coat, customized, dog, dog owners, dogs, dogwalkers jacket, fashion, hands-free, k-rosco, leash, let's go designs, pockets, style, utility, winter, yuppies
As they periodically do, Baltimore animal control officers and city police have cracked down on unleashed dogs — this time at Mount Vernon Square near the Washington Monument this week.
Bob Anderson, director of Baltimore Animal Control, estimated fewer than 10 dog walkers have been cited in the past three days for failing to have their dogs on leash.
According to the Baltimore Sun, the sweeps followed citizen complaints about dogs bothering people in the park.
Failing to have a dog on the leash can result in a $100 fine for the first offense and a $1,000 fine for repeat offenders. Those fines are set to go up soon, Anderson said.
City law requires dogs to be on a leash when not on their owner’s property. For my experiences with the law, you can click here.
According to the Sun, Anderson pointed out that dog owners have the option of using “the city’s dog parks” to let their pets run off leash.
In reality, the city of Baltimore has only one dog park, in Canton, though the city has promised to add more – with the first of them opening later this year in Latrobe Park in Locust Point.
In all the city parks, as they now exist, leash laws apply — and with the weather warming up, expect crackdowns soon at a park near you.
Posted by jwoestendiek March 19th, 2009 under Muttsblog.
Tags: animal control, baltimore, bust, citations, cited, city, crackdown, dog owners, dogs, enforcement, fines, law, leash, off-leash, parks, police, sweep, tickets, unleashed