Daily news for Seattle's Ballard neighborhood

 
Register or log in to post

My Ballard Forum » Open Forum

golden gardens & dogs

(61 posts)

Tags:

  1. eric

    eric

    offline
    Member

    ok, let me say - i love animals.

    however, i hate seeing dogs on the beach at GG park. first is the obvious sanitary issues. i walked on the beach very early in the AM a few weeks ago and was treated by several bags of crap put on rocks for the tide to dispose of i guess. really freaking gross and rude. not to mention the pee. kids play down there...

    then there's the fact that its illegal. there are signs everywhere.(ha, nice try in removing them though. there are new ones). i certainly hope none of the folks that rant and rave about homeless people and drugs aren't letting there little precious illegally soil the beach....

    finally, there is a dog park just up the road, why not use that?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  2. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Watchful not Paranoid

    offline
    Member

    Tell me about it eric. You would be surprised how many people think it is their GGR to off leash their dogs on the beach at Golden Gardens.

    Oh, BTW people who can justify any off leash activity and think your dogs is better than other dogs... It is low tide this week. At least show some respect for the marine life and please keep your dogs off the beach.

    I have a dog and find that I have to go to certain lawful areas to enjoy a good off leash romp with him... but I try to obey the law, respect other people who might not like dogs and always pick up the poopey doo.

    I don't know actually why I am writing all of this because people who off leash their dogs at Golden Gardens unfortunately are clearly illiterate.

    I will make it easy for the Golden Gardens off leash uppity better than thou folks:

    Bad Bark Bark near Wa Wa... there, is that easier for you?

    (The message brought to you by the Sea Cucumber Coalition and the Star Fish Inside Out Club.)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  3. LY

    LY

    offline
    Member

    Not to mention that $500 fine! Keeps me honest! $500 fine for dogs on the beach in Seattle, even ON the leash...

    And, I just don't get that picking up the poop and putting it in a bag and leaving it. What is that all about? I carry my bag away...to the public trash can, or, back to my own trash.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  4. eric

    eric

    offline
    Member

    yes, LY, that is a major pain for me. why bag it, i ask you? why go that far only to just drop it?

    ugh.

    i've been learning to let go and just enjoy the park, but i still wanna call in some tips. that is some easy money, City of Seattle!!! go to GG any day of any week and collect your dough....

    anyway. i am actually curious of the reasons dog owners may have that would excuse this behavior. please share.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  5. User has not uploaded an avatar

    gardner

    offline
    Member

    We have always had a dog, but never let it bother others as feel this is the responsible dog owners job. Twice last week while at GG a dog was off leash and left his business on the sand. The two different owners both just kicked sand over the piles. As my little charge was playing in the sand and not knowing what or how many other piles were down there, we left the area with tears in his eyes. He was all set to play with his buckets. A couple of years ago, while picnicing a mutt ran through out food spread out on a blanket. The owner just said sorry, he won't bite and walked away. What about our food being destroyed? The behavior of the owners is the trouble. They can be very illiterate. Why would they put the doggy bags into the paper recycle cans that we left out on the street during the snow for a couple of weeks, because of no pick up? We found several bags laying on top of the newspapers inside the can. One of them must be able to read because a couple of plastic bags were from the delivery of the morning paper. I have found filled bags inside my yard in the shrubs also where they have been tossed. Ugh

    I didn't know the fine for dogs being on the beach was 500.00. In that case, why doesn't the city just park a truck down there and make $$$$ a day in fines. That should releave some of the budget crunch for them. I'm going to start calling every time, I see a dog there. The dog park up above is very nice, so go up there to let off leash. Did you know this upper dog park area was used during the summers for day camps for cub scouts, brownies and campfire groups until the change over. So if nice enough for our young ones, its nice enough for the animals.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  6. User has not uploaded an avatar

    wave720

    offline
    Member

    Please, let's call them what they are: self-absorbed, self-centered, or elite snobs who think they're too good to obey the law or pick up their dog's poop. But PLEASE stop calling them illiterate as if that is an insult. I have volunteered for adult literacy programs for years and those who are illiterate are mostly embarrassed about their lack of education opportunity. Please don't add to it.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  7. SPG

    SPG

    offline
    Member

    Full disclosure: I have let my dog off leash in the beach area of GG, twice. It was after walking (while leashed) around the big rocks to the north and there weren't very many people there. It was quite nice to walk there with a friend while our dogs ran around the edge of the water. Neither dog pooped, but we would have carried it out if they had.

    I don't go down there anymore as my dog is content with another off leash area and if I want my dog to enjoy a hot day in the water there is always Magnusson, and I really don't want a $500 fine.
    The poop in a bag left on a rock is often being left until the owner gets to the end, turns around, and picks it up on the way out rather than carry it all the way to the end and back. If it's left for good, then that's just littering.
    What it sounds like you're all complaining about is just inconsiderate behaviour. Not even so much that it's the dogs, more that it's the owners that are the jerks.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  8. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Watchful not Paranoid

    offline
    Member

    Hey Wave720. Please excuse my use of the term illiterate to make a point about the people who think they are above the law. Your point is well received. I realize there are many people who have difficulty reading and it is not reflection on their personal character. Please forgive me.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  9. RB

    RB

    offline
    Member

    @Watchful not Paranoid

    I agree that dogs on the beach may disturb or destroy intertidal marine wildlife, however I can't help but notice the irony of the top story on this blog that shows some kids poking at marine wildlife during low tide. Are dogs any worse than people?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  10. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Marj

    offline
    Member

    Ok so the beach is not where its at for dogs. Come to the Golden Gardens Dog Park just up the hill. Its lots more fun. I may be there to take your dogs picture and put it on my website at: http://atthedogpark.info. This site is just for the love of dogs.
    You do need to pick up after your dog there but there is a dumpster nearby. Best time to come is early afternoons. Most all the dogs and people are friendly.

    Marj

    Posted 3 years ago #
  11. jubbjubb

    jubbjubb

    offline
    Member

    I've off leashed my dog on the beach between GG & Carkeek. I don't feel bad about it. I would pick-up after her if she did her business on the beach. I put the leash back on when others appear, but generally am out before the rest of the beach goers (if a tree falls in the woods and no one's around... who cares). I don't get the complaints... where do you think the birds or occasionally beached sea lions relieve themselves; have you ever noticed the damage the crows do to exposed wild life at low tide.
    We don't like the dog park; a bunch of crazed, unsupervised dogs running up on my pup isn't fun for anyone and can get ugly.
    Look at the California beaches, lot's of dog-allowances, yet somehow the humans still get to enjoy them and wild life thrives.
    It's a matter of courtesy in my mind. You wouldn't know I had been down there if you didn't witness me, and I think that should be fine. For those that disagree, I think there is a reverse that should apply, but never hear anyone chime in about; when I walk my dog on the street (leashed of course) and some parent lets their child walk up to my dog CPS should take action and the parent(s) charged with child endangerment. For that matter, I see parents on the beach letting their little kids get into all sorts of dangerous situations, presumably the same should apply. Certainly one 911 call for the aid car is of greater societal damage than a dog walking across a deserted beach.
    Look, most of us break a rule or law somewhere & most of us do it knowingly (or through inexcusable ignorance). And, in my experience, those of us who appear to remain within every law wind up being socially offensive (i.e. didn't I hear about some politician that cheated on his spouse once; I think I heard something about some good, church going folks being all sorts of nasty outside a little women's clinic; and what about that one RV that is staying in our dear neighborhood without violating ordinances). So, whatever, go on with your fascist dreams and maybe eventually you will succeed in homogenizing the world in your perfect image, but as for me live-and-let-live is a nicer philosophy.
    Oh and to you dog owners that don't pick up; please, you're making it really hard for the rest of us. We are trying to live in a society here. I'll give you the bag, you can use my trash can, but come on, do the right thing.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  12. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Watchful not Paranoid

    offline
    Member

    JubbJubb: nice muddling of the topic. Dogs are not allowed on the Beach at Golden Gardens.Period. You only try to twist the basis of the law because this is a law you choose to break. And of course you and your dog are different than all the OTHER off leash nobility who decide to ignore the law. That's what the ALL say.

    RB: I have yet to know of a dog who through careful observation of the wonders of aquatic life - grew up to be a marine biologist or an environmentalist. Some kids do though.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  13. motorrad

    motorrad

    offline
    Member

    Where do I start? Sanitary issues? I see so many kids standing at the waters edge peeing in the water or coming out with crap running out of their diapers. I have seen soiled diapers left just like the plastic bags of dog poo. Crap is Crap people. The Sound is not a swimming pool. The Cruise ships empty sewage and gray water, street runoff and sewer overflow goes into the Sound. And pick up your trash. When your kid goes wandering with a juice box, make sure they bring it back to you. Kids running across other peoples blankets or kicking up sand as they run by are just as annoying as dogs. Parents, control your kids. Teach them to respect others space. If I can train a dog, you should be able to train your kid. Lets ban Frisbees and other thrown projectiles please. And outlaw kites! I really resent the fact that I can't enjoy a walk with out having to dodge injury from above. And about the low tides and marine life, ARE YOU KIDDING ME! As mentioned previously, the picture of the kids poking at the marine life says it all. I have never seen a dog pick up a starfish and actually throw it when they are bored.

    This thread could just be the incentive needed to start the process to fight for a dog park at waters edge. The north east section of beach would be a perfect area for dogs to swim away from the NON dog people. There would be fewer people breaking the law letting their animals run the nice part of the beach if you would just share a sliver of it, a section that is marginal anyway, with people who are different from you. You could SHARE without having to be put out. It is unreasonable that Magnusen is the only park with water access and the dog people of seattle need to rectify this. For now, the area between GG and Carkeek is fine at lower tide when you can walk around the rocks. Last word, finally, teach your kids and keep them under control the way you expect dog owners to do.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  14. motorrad

    motorrad

    offline
    Member

    jubbjubb, I was writing at the same time you were. Yours is a little different :) in tone than mine. The time for organizing is now. I was shocked when I moved here that seattle has such draconian laws regarding dogs and water access. Time to challenge and change the situation. for the seattle people that will fight sharing 'set apart' access while maintaining the segregation, shame on you. Their would be fewer dogs/owners breaking the law and ruining your beach experience if the NE sliver was made a dog access area. I loved living in North Beach with beach access to take the dog without worry. Blue Ridge and North Beach dog owners have it made.

    Just because there is a law doesn't make it right. Civil disobedience is part of the history of this great country.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Watchful not Paranoid

    offline
    Member

    Motorrad. Great get er done. But until then observe the law.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  16. RB

    RB

    offline
    Member

    WNP: What the kid does for a career later in life is irrelevant. I was only pointing out that people probably do more damage to the wildlife than dogs. I still support the ban, though.

    JubbJubb: Laws by their very nature generalize. Some may not seem very sensible when applied to you, but they are in place for a reason. The reason in this case is that dogs are destructive to wildlife and owners have a history of letting their dogs pee and poop (without picking it up) where people play even if you don't. Also, dogs aren't capable of the same etiquette as humans. There is no guarantee that others won't witness you and then you are sending the message that the law doesn't really apply to everyone, which may encourage others to disregard the law as well. The bottom line is that we live in an urban environment that we all share. You can't have everything that you want.

    Your comparison to California is like comparing apples to oranges. The few beaches that we have in Seattle don't compare the the expansive beaches along the California coast and it is a bit of an exaggeration to say the wildlife thrives on the California coast. Also, pointing out others who break the law or behave badly doesn't justify your bad behavior. It's a common way to redirect the argument, though.

    I'm not a fascist and don't expect to have a homogenized world, but I do recognize that our beaches are a limited resource in Seattle and that we need to take care of them.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  17. motorrad

    motorrad

    offline
    Member

    A few dogs chasing tennis balls will destroy our beaches and wildlife. Thanks for the laughs today. Again, look at the pictures of the kids poking, picking up and capturing the marine life. If you really care about the health of the water and beaches, there are much bigger perpetrators at work. But the dog issue is easy and the dogs are annoying.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  18. Pariah

    Pariah

    offline
    Member

    Seriously? Dogs will destroy our limited resources (e.g. Golden Gardens)? Then there should also be a human ban. The alleged concern for Puget Sound beach wildlife is simply a pretext used by the NDHOS (Nazi Dog Haters of Seattle) to perpetuate their hateful and elitist agenda: eradicate all dogs from the city limits. "Because dogs belong in the country, with 'those types of people' Eeeew." People unite against this fascism!!! The rights of our canine cohorts, our beloved furry brethren, are being trampled! Fight the NDOHS hegemony. When was the last time a geoduck curled up next to you by the fireplace? When was the last time a starfish licked your face? When was the last time that sea anenome kept you company on your evening walk? Don't let them LIE to you about their concern for the tidal invertebrates. It is a farce. The real motivation is HATE. Don't hate Seattle. Love. Love your dog. (And pick up his poop please).

    Posted 3 years ago #
  19. RB

    RB

    offline
    Member

    Actually, I have a dog, am a dog lover, am not an elitist (whatever that is), not a Nazi, and not hateful. Dogs don't have rights, people do. This issue is more about the sandy part of GG than the tidal flats to the north, which are under water most of the time. Some of the other contributors here have made some valid arguments, but Pariah, you are a raving lunatic.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  20. eric

    eric

    offline
    Member

    i'd like to point out that i began this thread by stating that i love animals. this is true - all animals. i even pet some dogs down there while i am quietly mad at the owner. i certainly don't lose sleep at night or gnash my teeth at anyone over it.

    its easier and safer to call the parks dept than confront anyone, thats for sure.

    anyway, i'm not going to go back and forth with anyone, i was simply giving my opinion in a fairly calm and polite manner, imo.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  21. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Watchful not Paranoid

    offline
    Member

    Pariah: ...oh, never mind.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  22. User has not uploaded an avatar

    BallardDINK

    offline
    Member

    motorrad, did you seriously just use the word "segregation" when talking about the law against dogs being allowed on beaches?

    What's wrong with you? Do you have brain damage?

    Dogs are a privilege, not a right. You need a license to own one, and--being dangerous and filthy--there are reasonable restrictions on where dogs can appear in public. So spare me the melodrama, and the laughable (or is it pathetic?) attempt to equate racial discrimination to reasonable restrictions on a luxury good (pets).

    Posted 3 years ago #
  23. User has not uploaded an avatar

    snapea

    offline
    Member

    Good grief, BallardDINK, perhaps there was a softer way to suggest to motorrad that the word "segregation" is racially charged. Perhaps motorrad meant "separation" or wasn't PC enough to realize that "segregation" wasn't the "appropriate" word here. Take it in context of what motorrad said, and you are the one that brought up racial discrimination.

    Websters first definition of the word "segregation"

    1: the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated

    or, as a transitive verb:

    1 : to separate or set apart from others or from the general mass : isolate

    Nothing in these definitions infer the word is only allowed to be used in a racial context. It can apply to dogs being separated, or, dare I say it, segregated. Not that I would EVER use it that way.

    I am saying that the dog on beach issue is charged enough without you, BallardDINK, bringing up brain damage and racial discrimination. Why is it necessary to jump down someone's throat and misunderstand the intent of the person posting the comment? Haven't some people mentioned on this blog that they'd like to hear from the other side (of whatever issue is being discussed)? Why bother if you retort with a post like yours?

    BTW, to the dog owners who would love to take their dog to the beach--check out Shoredog in Shoreline, they are working for an off-leash salt water park at Richmond Beach!

    http://www.shoredog.org/

    1. Richmond Beach Saltwater Park (South End) - originally the north end by the dunes was also proposed but only the south end has been selected for a pilot site. This site will be timed use, initially between November and April. Opening anticipated November 2009.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  24. Ernie

    Ernie

    offline
    Member

    DINK,

    I kinda feel like having a dog is a right, you know part of my whole pursuit of happiness etc. Obviously reasonable restrictions on dogs in public is part of living together in a city.

    I think what motorad might be saying is that if enough people stood up and fought for beach access it might happen, it is still a democracy and all.

    BTW do you consider it a "right" to own the gun you were so proud to post about a couple months ago? Doesn't really get more "dangerous" than that.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  25. motorrad

    motorrad

    offline
    Member

    Wow. ballarddink's ignorant and ridiculous comments are what I love about this forum. I will be sending this to friends to share the laughs. But I also feel sorry for ballardink given the illustrative views put forth. Rereading your typing and counting to 20 before hitting send could save embarrassment in the future. Those few sentences speak volumes about ballardink.

    I choose my words carefully and segregation was specifically used. EXACTLY because of people like ballardink. Thank you for not disappointing me. The definition that snapea gave is why I chose that word and stand by it. Read and learn something ballardink. Hopefully you are capable of learning something new. Think of it as 'word of the day'. Thank you Snapea for the thoughtful back-up but segregation is exactly the appropriate word here. Too bad it doesn't pass PC muster. The narrow minded and prejudicial interpretation speaks volumes about certain peoples views and what seattle considers PC. It galls me to think that a person that considers dogs filthy and dangerous and obviously thinks ill of owners, considers a complete banishment from parks that dog owners pay toward as reasonable, yet accurate use of a word to describe a real situation is ignorantly demonized.

    The prevailing attitude is that dogs should not be allowed at the beach. I don't expect to change those curmudgeon's minds. What I DO want is to be able to go swimming with my dog (luxury good). For kids to be able to play and swim with their canine family members (luxury good).

    Separation, isolation and yes SEGREGATION is the only way that this seems possible. And I welcome it. I can enjoy my time without the bitterness, ignorance and hatefulness of ballardink and his ilk judging. So segregate us to the undesirable, unsandy tidal flats PLEASE. You don't have to be put out by us. Isolate us in our own less desirable area to better enjoy yours prime beach. SIMPLE. Don't look at it as sharing or compromise, you win and get what you want!

    Pariah did express something that was the absolute truth. The initiation of a dog ban on Seattle beaches had nothing to do with water quality or marine life, it had to do with dog haters using political clout to suit their will. The 'environmentalists' were duped into pushing the agenda with great success. Equestrians have used this tactic for decades.

    I may be brain damaged. But ballardink, it is you who are "dangerous and filthy" (quote from his/her comment) on the inside. Bitterness on that scale is unhealthy.

    Thanks for the thoughtful back-up Snapea.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  26. jubbjubb

    jubbjubb

    offline
    Member

    I am compelled to chime in again. Pets as well as livestock are no more of a luxury item than children or spouses. I am not going to argue the value of animal versus human life, what I am saying is that we have a symbiotic contract with domesticated animals. We have certain obligations to the animals we worked to domesticate and in turn, those animals have an obligation to us as the development of this relationship was consensual (they chose to hang out near the cavemen's campfires for protection & food). Included in our obligitation to the domesticated animals is to adhere to the Five Freedoms, part of which is the freedom to perform normal patterns of behavior. "Normal" dog behavior is running free, chasing sticks and so forth. The powers that be in this town (and many others) have determined that townhouses & condo's, that have little outdoor space, creates the preferred residential density levels, thus there is an obligation by the city to allow dogs a place to run free on occasion without being burdened by the UFC cage matches that we call off-leash parks.
    I see people commended left and right for acts of civil disobedience because they apparently have the moral authority to determine when a war, abortion, conviction, etc. should or should not be supported. We who actively advocate the commonsense approach to leashes are no worse than the the folks that stand on the tracks to prevent nuclear waste from being shipped somewhere (or if you're on the more conservative side of things, people who get too close to abortion clinics when protesting).
    To suggest a dog is a luxury item starts moving a bit too close to the Carthaginians and vivisection. They considered a dog's screams during the procedure akin to those of an un-oiled engine, not pain that counts but simply a machine malfunctioning.
    But then again, what do I know; according to some of the posts above apparently I'm illiterate.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  27. User has not uploaded an avatar

    snapea

    offline
    Member

    oh, and talk about not PC (yeah, I brought that term up, OK)--accusing someone of brain damage--not thinking about our gang coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan with traumatic brain injury is extremely thoughtless if one wishes to take it that far. Which, I don't really--just thinking more about the absurdity of BallardDINK's response. And back at DINK for being so insensitive. Hey, maybe BallardDINK needs some kids to illuminate him/her to the important things in life! ha ha!

    Got yer back, motorrad...didn't mean to apologize for you, either. I'm a middle child...would like us all to get along--respectful disagreeing is great but that Bill O'Reilly purposeful obfuscation and misdirection and attack that BallardDINK employed is irritating. OK, I will take it as humor, like you do.

    And, yes, please, segregate me and my beloved dog on the beach, please!!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  28. Pariah

    Pariah

    offline
    Member

    (Proposed Resolution)
    The Seattle Parks and Recreation Superintendant;
    Having carefully reviewed the Superintendant's authority under SMC 18.12.040;
    Recognizing the restrictions declared in SMC 18.12.080;
    Having fully considered the protections and concerns enumerated in RULE ESTABLISHING MARINE RESERVES WITHIN CERTAIN CITY PARKS(in particular those protections and concerns as detailed in the Preface);
    Resolves to exclude ALL CHILDREN under the age of 16 from all Marine Reserves of Seattle (in particular Golden Gardens) for violation of items 4.4.1, 4.4.3, 4.4.4 of RULE ESTABLISHING MARINE RESERVES; (See Rule below)
    Further resolves that those children excluded from Marine Reserves by this declaration will be permitted to enjoy the warm summer days in the Off Leash Park as designated in 18.12.080 if under proper voice control.

    RULE ESTABLISHING MARINE RESERVES WITHIN CERTAIN CITY PARKS
    PREFACE
    This Rule has been developed pursuant to SMC 18.12.040 because there is a need to provide enhanced protection for certain sensitive inter-tidal and marine areas within Seattle park boundaries. These areas provide valuable habitat for fish and wildlife and a valuable educational and scientific resource for the citizens of Seattle. While general parks policies provide some protection for such areas, marine and intertidal areas within certain portions of Golden Gardens, Carkeek Park, South Alki/Richey Viewpoint, Lincoln Park, Schmitz Viewpoint, and Discovery Park, will benefit from enhanced protection as designated Marine
    Reserves.
    1. PURPOSE
    1.1. To establish the boundaries of Marine Reserves within certain Seattle Parks and to establish the rules governing such Marine Reserves.

    4. POLICY
    4.1. Marine Reserves are hereby established within the City-owned portions of certain marine and inter-tidal areas of Golden Gardens, Carkeek Park, South Alki/Richey Viewpoint, Lincoln Park, Schmitz Viewpoint and Discovery Park as set forth in Attachment A.
    4.2. All such Marine Reserves shall remain open to the public unless public access is otherwise restricted pursuant to a separate policy or order. Shellfish gathering is not authorized within the boundaries of a Marine Reserve.
    4.3. Dogs or other domestic animals (except service animals, or dogs used by public law enforcement agencies and under control of a law enforcement officer) are prohibited within the boundaries of a Marine Reserve.
    4.4. Unless specifically permitted pursuant to Section 4.5 of this Rule, the following activities are prohibited within the boundaries of a Marine Reserve except as part of a pest eradication program or other specifically approved activity:
    4.4.1. Hunting, or intentionally wounding, killing, trapping, or capturing any wildlife species, including without limitation, any non-domesticated mammal, bird, amphibian, or reptile (and including the eggs or offspring thereof);
    4.4.2. Intentionally removing, damaging, or destroying any fish or wildlife nests or breeding places;
    4.4.3. Intentionally removing, harvesting, damaging, or destroying any plant (including but not limited to kelp and seaweed and other aquatic plants);
    4.4.4. Digging, trenching, scouring, drilling or otherwise disturbing submerged or inter-tidal lands;
    4.4.5. Engaging in any activity otherwise prohibited by applicable city ordinances or other Parks Rules.
    Incidental damage that may be caused by otherwise permitted activities shall not be
    considered a violation of this Rule. This section shall not be applied to impair the exercise of any right protected by the Treaty of Point Elliot (12 Stat.927 (1859)) or other tribal treaty.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  29. eric

    eric

    offline
    Member

    heh. quite honestly, a beach w/o children AND dogs BOTH would suit me just fine! however, that's just crazy so i limited my initial post to the law at hand re: dogs.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  30. Ernie

    Ernie

    offline
    Member

    I was just at golden gardens and there were about, I don't know, like 10,000 people burning anything they could get their hands on, and generally making a huge mess. It really makes any concerns about enviromental damage or un-sanitary conditions caused by DOGS pale in comparison. Just sayin.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  31. BallardrallaB

    BallardrallaB

    offline
    Member

    Speaking of gun rights and Golden Gardens, I believe an AK-47 and a loaded Glock (found and picked put by a 4th grader) have recently been found over there. Maybe we should get some gun sniffing dogs out there!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  32. OingoBoingo

    OingoBoingo

    offline
    Member

    Ernie
    The mad compulsion to burn things may have been sparked by a celebration of summer solstice, an event older than any other event recognized by humans save winter solstice and equinox(i?). Don't get me wrong, these people should've picked up after themselves. Slobs.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  33. motorrad

    motorrad

    offline
    Member

    I am going to start a new movement to promote the Golden Gardens water dog park.

    Tiny, REALLY tiny bright red speedos with a catchy slogan. I will make sure that all of us that have no business wearing them will be wearing them. Oh it will be ugly. And we will rise up and wear them not just to the beach, but to the Farmers market before the beach. And grocery shopping. And in front of the coffee shops, and when I ride my bike (because I have been chastised for driving there) to Rain City and when I eat at Picolinos (whatever). And we will tie our shirts up to show the waist bands, or where they should be. You will be so sick of seeing our junk you will beg us to put on cargo shorts and take our dogs TO THE BEACH!!! And if you think this is too ridiculous to happen or work, think about the outrageous crap that succeeds and you ask yourself, are you ready for an all- speedo, all the time campaign. I promise it won't be pretty.

    Right on Snapea. I am an oldest child which you may see signs of. I want everyone to get along as well, but will rail up against perceived ignorance and injustice, especially when so blatantly self serving, offensive at the expense of and in spite of other's wishes and opinions. But I grow weary, sad and simultaneously angry reading the forums. I don't want to carry that much bitterness and negativity. I was pleasantly surprised to see you sincerely back me up. I really enjoyed the last line in your post.

    Pariah! Ambitious and awesome post. Your proposal makes the most sense to keep the marine life from being poked and prodded. Let's move on that. If we can get enough 'Greenies' and curmudgeons to push that proposal, out of fear they may actually have to compromise and give us a beach front dog park. Hence the Red Speedo Protest. Extortion, blackmail, whatever.

    Richmond Beach, I SALUTE YOU!!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  34. KB_soberdog

    KB_soberdog

    offline
    Member

    Oh goodie, where to start? First of all thanks to smart people like Motorrad, Jubb Jubb (nice meeting you tonight at Bergen Park with Bela!) and Ernie, and yes, Pariah, who while a bit extreme has valid points and I agree with all of ya'll!! For years I took my three dogs to any body of water I wanted to in Seattle area, including many spots on Lake Washington. I was never cited. I swam with my dogs, who did NOT poop, did NOT destroy or even get near any wildlife, did NOT pee anywhere near the water, did NOT annoy anyone....unlike many children I saw. You see, I'm a RESPONSIBLE dog guardian. I actually don't even know if it was against the law back then, or at least not as much as it is now. I saw dogs swimming all the time! However there are many who are not responsible, and who really should not have animals at all. These people make it bad and sad for the rest of us who DO pick up our dog's poop, who don't let our dogs run up to other dogs or people (unless in off leash park, and even then I watch them carefully). I currently have two dogs, one who does not like water, and the other one is obnoxious to other dogs, so I don't take them to the lake or even to the off leash water areas such as Magnuson or Marymoor. I don't like dog parks sometimes because there are the few irresponsible people who will go to them and ignore their dog completely, treating the place like their own backyard, reading and talking on the damn phone. It's a park for you to play with and interact with your dog and other dogs, NOT a place to drop off your dog and ignore them. Responsible dog people watch their dogs the whole time they are at the park. Then there are the people who bring children to the dog park. Now, I was raised with dogs. Lots of kids are. However, even if they are good with dogs and know all about them and their behavior (which most do NOT), if a kid is knocked down accidently by a running dog, the DOG and OWNER gets blamed. Animal control or police could be called, and the parent, who is AT FAULT will not get in trouble, the dog and dog owner will!! I will not go to the parks at all if there are kids there, period. It's a DOG PARK not a kid's park. Kids have parks all over Seattle. Dogs do not. So I'd have to agree with some comments above, if your kid runs up to my dog whether in a dog park or on the street, YOU should get in trouble. And if your kid gets bit, YOU should get in trouble. Another great annoyance is certain people who let their dogs off leash on the GG trail system, which is NOT off leash! I know some great responsible dog folks whose dogs are fine on the trails, are under voice control (for real), and do not run up to my ON LEASH dogs or poop randomly all over , etc. But there are quite a few people who do let their dogs just run, sometimes way out of sight of the owners, who have run up to my dogs, and like I said one of my dogs is not real friendly with other dogs which is why she is on a leash. I don't appreciate it. I LOVE your dogs! Really I do. I don't get mad at the dogs, I don't yell at them even. In fact I haven't even yelled at the owners, which I should. The one time I said something this guy got all uppity and said that my dog shouldn't be there (on leash) if she is not friendly, as he let his huge dog on a flexi-leash (super long, not actually legal length for a leashed dog which is 6 feet) run up to my dog as she was trying to poop! (Just to clear up, she is not mean, just obnoxious). But I have to try and walk away, or distract my dog with treats, or even sometimes leave the park altogether because they are not paying attention to their dogs, or are but just don't care. It's not fair to those of us actually being respectful and courteous! It's real easy! Keep your dogs in sight, and when you see someone coming with LEASHED (legal) dogs, put your dogs back on the leash until we walk a distance away! I've even done this myself the couple times I've let them roam on the trails with me unleashed (when I didn't see anyone around). Ok well now I'm rambling, sorry. My point is this...kids and humans in general are filthier and more destructive than any dog. Further, people are to blame for their own, their children's and their dog's behavior. If the kid or dog is not acting right, it's the parent's or dog owner's fault. That, or they just doing "natural" behaviors and not being supervised!
    I'll take dogs over people any day of the week, in almost any situation! Of course, I'm a dog freak and admit it....thanks for letting me pontificate (love that word, had to use it). Thanks for all the posts, even the ones I disagree with, we can all have discourse on here and not get aggro, right?? Right. Cheers

    Posted 3 years ago #
  35. eric

    eric

    offline
    Member

    wow guy. paragraphs are your friend...

    the law is the law. you don't get to pick and choose the ones you'd like to follow.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  36. User has not uploaded an avatar

    snapea

    offline
    Member

    Hey eric, I hope you aren't in the left lane on the freeway when you are obeying the law and going 55 when the flow of traffic chooses to disobey the law and cruise by at 60...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  37. motorrad

    motorrad

    offline
    Member

    Of course he is. He and the other 'better' citizens, must follow ALL laws righteously and never break a law EVER or be a hypocrite. It is important to make sure others follow the law as well, thus driving in the left lane, it makes them righteous. Bringing in baggage from another thread, there should be a lot more bikers and pedestrians around if all the Preachers & Chastisers were actually parking their cars and walking and biking to the video store and errands. Mr. Eric has a tough road to hoe being a faithful and constant Law Abider. I only pray he has the moral fiber to live up to his statement. Me, I believe in civil disobedience and The Red Speedo Movement mentioned above.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  38. jubbjubb

    jubbjubb

    offline
    Member

    About picking & choosing the laws to obey... the stretch of 15th between Market & the south side of the Ballard Bridge has a 30-MPH speed limit. As one who drove that 4-times daily I can say without equivocation that, but for an immeasurable minority, no one obeys that law; further, to obey it creates a bit of a traffic hazard/impediment. Since SPD has repeatedly set up speed traps at Louie's, they are aware of this. This includes Metro buses. Thus, I think it's clear that the majority of the driving public that uses this road do pick and choose. Since agents of the local goverment act in like fashion it would seem to infer that responsibly picking and choosing what laws one follows is an acceptable social practice.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  39. KB_soberdog

    KB_soberdog

    offline
    Member

    Yes, paragraphs ARE my friend. What of it? I apologised already for rambling! hahaaaa So Eric, look deep into yourself and tell me, which laws have you chosen not to follow? 'Cuz ya have. I DO, in fact, get to choose which ones I want to follow, as do all of us. Some laws don't make sense. In fact a LOT of them don't. You know that. So don't be self righteous, yo. Thanks for the backup JubbJubb and motorrad. Yay for civil disobedience! There would be no America without it!!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  40. Ernie

    Ernie

    offline
    Member

    You're delusional or lying if you say you obey each and every law all the time.

    A lot of laws are there just so that the citizens or the authorities have a recourse when someone is being stupid about it and causing HARM to someone else. If you're law breaking causes no harm (IMO running your dog on the beach and picking up after him when no one is around at 5:30 am on Sunday) it's kind of like a tree falling in the woods when no one is there to hear it.

    On the other hand if you let your dog go bounding through peoples picnics, knocking down little children, then that is what the law is there for. Clearly laws have to be black and white, like "no dogs on the beach, period" otherwise the courts would be full of people arguing about all the subtleties forever.

    Even the most fundamental and obvious law, the law against murder, has some exceptions for self defense, war, etc.

    If you put all these rationalizations and arguments aside, Eric's statement is still wrong, because I AM free to break any law I want to as long as I'm willing to pay the consequences of my crime. Here's an example, I never pay for parking at the little green kiosks unless I'm going to park for more than 45 min or an hour. Guess what, I've been doing this for a couple of years now and I haven't gotten a ticket yet, and when my luck runs out it'll cost me $30, I've probably saved a couple of hundred bucks so far.

    Is someone being harmed by this deviant behavior? yes, the city (all of us), well maybe we should have kept the parking meters that were already paid for years ago, and you could just drop a quarter in when you were getting a cup of coffee. I guess this is my little form of civil disobediance

    Posted 3 years ago #
  41. eric

    eric

    offline
    Member

    oh yes i clearly said i am a perfect citizen. lets see if i can find where i said that...hmmm. nope, can't find it.

    everyone makes mistakes, drives too fast on occassion etc; this is more a situation of deciding,"me and widdle woogums don't have too obey the law (or pick up our turds) because we are speshul snoflakes." or something like that..

    Posted 3 years ago #
  42. motorrad

    motorrad

    offline
    Member

    I call BS on you. Hyp. O .crit.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  43. User has not uploaded an avatar

    snapea

    offline
    Member

    No...no...eric, you said: "the law is the law. you don't get to pick and choose the ones you'd like to follow. "

    And that is what I believe we are responding to. That is the sentiment that I am responding to. When you throw down the gauntlet (as quoted above) I am saying that, gee, I actually _do_ get to pick and choose, and, I think that you might pick and choose as well.

    That's all. Not that you are perfect. It is not a mistake to drive too fast when the flow of traffic is going greater than the speed limit. It is a choice to speed and take the ticket. Just like it is a choice to take dog off leash and take the ticket. I believe most of the off-leash people on this blog appear to agree to follow common sense and try to stay out of everyone's way when they chose to disobey the law and take "widdle woogums" off leash (I never even talked to my kids like that, let alone my dog). Perhaps this is the way you address your dog. Whatever, that's fine with me...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  44. eric

    eric

    offline
    Member

    well this certainly is not productive.

    i stand by my original post to start this thread.

    start your organization for a ballard-off leash-beach park or respect other peoples right to not walk in pee and turd, etc.

    good night, and have a pleasant tomarrow.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  45. User has not uploaded an avatar

    snapea

    offline
    Member

    Oh, sorry, I wasn't really trying to be productive...I love the to-ing and fro-ing of these posts just because they are fun.

    eric--good idea to start (what I think you mean, but, I could be wrong) a Golden Gardens off leash beach area--but you still don't want to hear that we off-leash enthusiasts (the ones that post on this blog) DO continually talk about respecting other people's rights and and keep their dogs away from people and kids. Maybe you missed all those posts, I know, there is a lot to read.

    Oops, sorry, I misread your post. You want us to either start an organization OR respect other people's rights--can't it be both?

    OK, so, we agree on old SNL...that's one thing.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  46. KB_soberdog

    KB_soberdog

    offline
    Member

    hahahhahhahahahaaaaaa

    Posted 3 years ago #
  47. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Watchful not Paranoid

    offline
    Member

    All you people that cry about the bad off leash parks... how dirty they are, how unkind the dogs are, how oblivious the owners are... do you really want golden gardens to end up like that or is GG one of the benefits of living here? Why don't you apply some Kantian Ethics and think about the universality of your actions... do you want your actions to be applied on a universal level to GG - if they are then it will just be another ugly offleash dog park with out of control of poopey animals where no one can play.

    Make some sacrifices people and stop pretending the world and its beauty was created just for little ol' you and your perfect dog.

    Keep dogs off the Beaches at GG and on the leash in areas where they are allowed.

    Geez, this is not difficult. Just a bunch of spoiled, individualist trying to force their personal preferences on everyone else. Whereas those who do not think dogs should be off leash at GG have the law on their side. If you don't like the law, try to change it - if your too lazy to do that - THEN OBEY IT.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  48. User has not uploaded an avatar

    snapea

    offline
    Member

    WNP: "Kant believes only actions performed for the sake of duty have moral worth. He seems to suggest that the greater one's disinclination to act for the sake of duty, the greater the moral worth of the action"

    As much as I am disinclined to disobey the law I feel I have a duty to my lab to take her off leash once a day. I will keep in mind the greater moral worth for my sacrifice.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  49. User has not uploaded an avatar

    snapea

    offline
    Member

    and by those quotes, and did not mean to imply that WNP said those words--I have addressed those quotes to WNP.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  50. motorrad

    motorrad

    offline
    Member

    Eric, WNP and others of their ilk have already been exposed as hypocrites that espouse the importance of following laws, yet do not live up to their own rhetoric. In this case they have the law supporting their totally selfish agenda of COMPLETE control over the beaches. Suits them fine. Yet they do not follow every law. They pick and choose and bend the ones that are inconvenient. The immaturity and selfishness of their attitudes really offends and saddens me. Quit trying to impress others by quoting intellectual crap and take a serious look at your behavior and ethics. You choose to control and deny the lives of others that have different life styles and opinions. You prefer to push your lifestyle as the only way and control others.

    There is a mayoral election coming, and the pro-dog lobby is getting stronger and better at politics. We don't want to have access to the whole beach, we are happy to be segregated to a small sliver of lesser quality. But therein lies the big difference between my people and WNP, eric's and their childish, immature and less developed ilk. My people don't seek to control other's behavior where it concerns lifestyle. I would rather find a way to share, coexist and allow people to be who they are. You can quote all the intellectual crap you want but your selfish values and behavior still suck.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  51. eric

    eric

    offline
    Member

    you and yours are the only ones who want to pick and choose the laws to follow, i simply admitted that, of course, i've driven to fast on occassion, etc - that is not something i consciously chose to do. when you pack up lil woogums and drive/walk him to the beach, that is a very deliberate and conscious action.

    you and you ilk may not seek to change peoples' behavior, but you have no trouble letting your dogs crap and pee on a public beach. thats the difference between our "ilks".

    anyway, motorrad, you are fairly unhinged and rude in your ziel to prove how selfish and rude i, and others, are.

    enjoy your weekends,and obey those laws, folks...

    Posted 3 years ago #
  52. User has not uploaded an avatar

    bungalo

    offline
    Member

    Philosophically, I am more in line with motorrad than eric. However, if it became legal to have dogs off-leash on the mud flats north of GG then I could see it becoming a pretty busy place. One reason why it seems pretty harmless to be out there with a dog is that not many do it, since it is illegal. On a typical weekend at the GG dog park, there can be 10-20 dogs at the park at any given time. I don't know how many visit over the course of a day, but it seems like it would be a lot. If most of those people went down to the beach and maybe some others that don't normally go to the GG dog park, that would be a lot of dogs running around. I don't have such a negative opinion of the dog park as some here, but the reason why its that way is because there are lots of dogs packed into a relatively small area. The mud flats cover a bigger area, but are not endless. Inevitably, some will not clean after their dogs. There will be an impact. How much I can't really say.

    Given the fact that there are many dog owners in Ballard and Seattle, it seems like some accommodation should be made. We're tax payers too after all. But, we need to be careful not to love the place to death.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  53. Barbara

    Barbara

    offline
    Member

    HALT! STOP! ENOUGH WITH THE JUNIOR HIGH MUD-SLINGING and insults and diatribes. Be kind to animals and dog owners. Nope. . .no Pollyanna here. I have a rescue dog, he gets walked twice a day (on a leash, of course), and I pick up after him. Otherwise, he has a fenced yard, toys and loving owners who spend time with him. Please, stop with the sarcasm and nasty posts.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  54. User has not uploaded an avatar

    snapea

    offline
    Member

    Barbara, respectfully, why are you continuing to read the thread if it bothers you so?

    Maybe just don't read it--there is a lot of other wonderful info on MyBallard to pay attention to.

    I find it helpful to know that there are people in my neighborhood that I may have to watch out for when I take my dog off leash for a few minutes, in an area where there is apparently no one around (for me, not the beach as I won't risk that $500, but I will risk the $50-$100 for off-leash around town). I know now there are aggressive people out there who really hate the dog-off-leash concept. There is a crazy guy at my local park who verbally threatens people, I don't know when it may go further than that. And when I say people, come to think of it, I have only seen him become aggressive with women...not the occasional male I see with a dog off-leash...hmmm...

    And if you think I am being paranoid, a few months back on this blog a male was quite proud of himself for attacking a woman in upper golden gardens who was jogging with her dog off leash behind the dog park. He sprayed mace in her face, as I remember.

    So, for me it is better to know the level of intolerance around me.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  55. seattletree

    seattletree

    offline
    Member

    well i have to confess, i sneaked out to the beach about once a week with my little doggies right about as the sun is coming up to avoid other humans. yep, it is against the law, yep i picked up any poop. We stick to the area of soft sand cuz they like it.. and i like them to be happy. I am a law breaker. Yep. I haven't engaged in this behavior for some time now, since the much larger financial penalty. With three dogs, it would kill me..... but i would if i thought i could get away with it..

    Posted 3 years ago #
  56. eric

    eric

    offline
    Member

    whoa...sprayed with mace? that is well beyond any complaints i have with "dog people", let it be known.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  57. MyMallard

    MyMallard

    offline
    Member

    Why to these topics have to become so mean-spirited and pedantic? Why talk to people like that? Is that how you talk to people in person? That's basically what Barbara was asking, and she was told to love it or leave it. Great attitude.

    People can write whatever they want on here, but all this sniping and sarcasm doesn't make, to my mind, for a very neighborly discussion or even debate.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  58. Barbara

    Barbara

    offline
    Member

    Thank you, My Mallard, for your post. I read pretty much everything on MyBallard to get a general feel for the neighborhood in which I grew up. My folks moved here in 1943 and now I continue, after caregiving them for 16 years, to love "my" Ballard home. So, to check the pulse I will continue to read + and - about our neighborhood.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  59. User has not uploaded an avatar

    Watchful not Paranoid

    offline
    Member

    Barbara, react and read. That is what it is all about. You say great things.

    Funny how snapea is all about freedoms and personal choice but, subtly attempting to control your behavior on this blog. How interesting.

    If you don't like the laws people who think your dog is more special than mine... change the laws. If you can't change them...well sorry, you have no idea how many dog lovers out here actually abide by and respect the law regarding off leash areas.

    Sadly, you must think that when you are offleashing your dog - that anyone who speaks to you or reminds you of the leash laws does not have a dog. Frankly, the ones who are most vocal are the people who own dog themselves, who love dogs and are trying keep as many areas dog friendly as possible.

    You fool yourselves by telling yourselves that anyone who thwarts your off leash attempts simply does not like dogs - what a convenient delusion for you.

    No... if you are spoken to about your off leash pet... it is most likely by a responsible dog owner or dog lover (who just might not be walking there dog at that exact moment) who is offended by your arrogance and complete disregard for the laws. You basically give dog owners a bad name and we would like as many areas to welcome dogs as possible.

    Imagine if by way of your actions they made a law of no dogs allowed at Golden Gardens... would you cry and stomp your feet? Would you ever consider that you were the reason for the ban?

    Posted 3 years ago #
  60. wombat

    wombat

    offline
    Member

    wow. I'm going to make this short and simple. I enjoy seeing dogs having a joyful time at the beach. On or off leash, doesn't matter to me. Well-behaved dogs welcome. Cleaning up after yourself, your kids, you dogs, that should just be common sense.

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

OUR SPONSORS










Advertise here
There are 85 users online. 2 of them are members.
213158 posts in 14721 topics over 61 months by 3927 of 84267 members. Latest: ztwzpac568, ndukspr656, qingxue