We’re Gone to the Dogs
I expect someone will soon sick a vicious junkyard dog on me. This is because I’m trying to make sense of a Jan. 9 hearing before the Salt Lake City Council over whether to turn a longtime nature park near the mouth of Parley’s Canyon into a full-time, off-leash dog zone.
It got a little nuts.
First, there were these off-leash activists who packed the meeting. They love their dogs as much as any parent loves her children. They want the whole of Parley’s Historic Nature Park, at 2700 East and 2700 South, to be open to their dogs, sans leash. As near as I can tell, these folks think their domesticated dog companions have some biological imperative to run free.
Opponents to the total off-leash area argued that no matter how well-behaved, dogs will always alter the natural environment. They speed erosion of stream beds, disturb birds and other wildlife. The park could function with on-leash, off-leash and no-dogs-at-all zones, they say.
Ted Wilson was Salt Lake City mayor in the early ’80s when property owners deeded their land to the city for the park. He reminded everyone of the history of the place. Mormon pioneers trekked right through it and followed Parleys Creek in to the valley. It should be preserved.
The City Council took the matter under advisement.
I sensed that the dog people thought Ted, who also happens to be my husband, has something against dogs. Hardly. He told them a little about our 10-year-old pound mutt, Kip. Kip is mostly wiener dog, but with long hair. He also may be Welsh corgi. He has terrier ears. The grandkids like to dress him up, or push him around the living room in a laundry basket. Kip endures all manner of humiliation to please them.
It’s a dog’s life for Kip, which means he gets two squares a day, a lamb’s wool cushion in front of the fireplace and a daily walk. Oh, and did I mention regular pats on the head and belly scratches? That, too.
The point being: Kip is a dog. He has a place in the house, in our lives, and he knows it. He isn’t a child. He doesn’t substitute for a child. He’s key to this family, but he is a DOG.
Here are two comments from dog lovers to the City Council, which sums up the group’s feelings:
–”I have two dogs. I don’t have any children and who knows if I’ll ever have a child? I give them equal time that I would give to a child I might bring into the world.”
–”I need to give [my dogs] the quality of life that everyone gives their children. I don’t have children. I’ve been taking my dog to this park for two years now. I’ve seen the park improve in that time, in terms of cleanliness and the environment. It wasn’t a pure preserve before. It’s important for people who have animals who need to run to keep this park off-leash.”
Would I feel differently had I never given birth to children? If dogs were all I had as family? Hard to say. But I found myself trying to understand this urge so many humans have to turn their dogs into people.
Hey Kip, any thoughts?
Nah. He’s snoozing.
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
As a childless dog owner, my first inclination is to jump to the defense of my fellow childless dog owners. After all, there are a myriad of places people can go with their children to romp and play or to immerse themselves in the beauty that nature has to offer, but very few places for our canine friends to run free. Having given the situation a bit more thought though, it seems to me that the only equitable thing to do is to afford some space be set aside for dogs to go off-leash and the rest can be the nature preserve. Even though to my way of thinking, humans have certainly caused a lot more damage to the land and environment than dogs have.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:49 am
You know what? How much more space in Utah needs to be preserved simply because Mormon pioneers trekked through it? Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for ancestor worship, but when is enough enough?
Let me put it another way. The Fremont Indians were here for a hell of a lot longer than the descendants of the Mormon pioneers ever will be and we’re not preserving any land just ’cause they wandered over it. Why do the ancestors of Mormons take precedent? What if we said, “Hey, the Fremont once traditionally ambled over this spot on their way to gamble in Nevada so let’s keep the dogs the hell out of here.” Would that be fair to the dogs? I think not.
If we’re going to preserve land, let’s preserve it for a reason that makes sense to everyone who pays taxes in Utah, not just the group of folks who always get exactly what they want no matter what. And if letting the dogs run around a bit makes sense to everyone, why not give them a few acres? I don’t have a dog (but do have a boy), and it makes sense to me.