Dave… hard to disagree with the writer of this opinion.

As is ALWAYS the case, a few bad apples spoil it for everybody.

A few irresponsible bicyclists make all cyclists the object of resentment on both road and bike/pedestrian path. (A situation I’m all too familiar with!)

A few vandals cause formerly-public facilities to be closed to the public.

A few punk kids make us old people view ALL kids with a general air of suspicion.

And a few clueless dog owners cause restrictions to be placed on all dogs and their owners. That’s just the way it works, unfortunately.

One day, I saw a punk kid walking his dog downtown, on Jefferson Street. His dog paused, squatted, and took a dump in the middle of the sidewalk. As they sauntered away, I asked him, “Aren’t you going to clean that up?” He looked at me momentarily, then his attention was gone and he strolled on. (I would love to have thrown his dog’s mess at him – I was HOT!)

Too bad dogs get restricted on account of their idiot owners.

Question… the English bulldog in the photo – friend of yours? (I’ve got a soft spot in my heart for that breed; they’re the best!)

Well, North End Neighbor, you might as well go ahead and admit you don’t like your mother, you hate apple pie, and you think immigration is an overblown issue.Even t6hough you bring valid points to the discussion, I think you may take a little bit of a verbal beating here.

North End Neighbor won’t get any verbal beating from me unless it’s that he/she didn’t go far enough. I propose a dog pooping in public should get the owner a misdemeanor just the same as if the owner had pooped in public, regardless if they pick it up or not. Is not feces, feces? Is dog feces somehow less objectionable than human feces? In any case, let’s dump our human waste in the Boise River again, like old days, and save ourselves that $50 a month sewage fee.

Bikeboy, I’m sorry, I believe you’re inaccurate when you use the adjective “few” repeatedly. It’s MANY dogs that are causing MANY problems. It’s not just the feces, and the running wild off leash, it’s barking too. Don’t forget the attacks on children by vicious breeds, no need to point out the breed’s name, I’ll bet a dollar to a donut everyone knows which breed I’m talking about.

I make this $100 challenge to anyone. Bicycle to any neighborhood, in the North End at least, wait 2 minutes, and you’ll hear some dog barking.

Bikeboy-

I am not sure with this issue we are only discussing a few bad apples, I think the problem is more prolific. I am a dog owner, dog walker, and dog lover, but I am very much opposed to no-leash areas. Many dog owners are dillusional that their dog can do no wrong, all the proper breeding and training from the owner could not have gone awry, and these dog owners seem to believe that everyone else is a dog lover as well so we automatically tolerate the behavior of man’s best friend. Even in parks where dogs are leashed, irresponsible dog owners allow their dog to run wild on a 30-40′ leash. I have had many near accidents on my bike on the greenebelt due to leashed dogs, I have had my children knocked down by leashed and unleashed dogs, and I had an infant bitten on the hand by a fun loving dog thinking it was playing.

I would agree that the majority of dog owners are responsible, but it is a large minority of irresponsible dog owners, and many do not realize they are irresponsible. In the 5 years I have been riding on the greenbelt and using city parks in SE boise, I have never seen a dog owner get a citation, yet I see violations every time.

The city should not expand leash laws until they are prepared to effectively enforce existing ordinances in our existing public areas.

Bikeboy is correct in that a few bad apples may spoil it for the rest of the dog owners. As a responsible dog owner, I, too, am disgusted by those bad apples who don’t pick up after their dogs. I sometimes pick up after them because I don’t want them to spoil it for the rest of us. It reminds me of those campers who think it’s okay to trash a campsite and leave their garbage everywhere. !@$*! I guess we should ban camping for all, right?! Wrong!

Let’s look at a couple of points:

Developers have sold families a bill of goods – “suburban living.” This means homes on tiny lots in ‘hoods, most of which have no parks. City leash laws require dogs to be leashed and walked on sidewalks and in parks. Dogs (like children) need areas to run and play! This leaves our parks and foothills. (By the way, the new park in my ‘hood – Peppermint Park – has been taken over as a soccer field in the evenings so that I cannot enjoy it as a dog owner or non-dog owner.)

Non-dog owners, dog owners, and cyclists are ALL entitled to use our parks and foothills, are they not? I enjoy reading the argument that dogs destroy precious habitat. Folks, have you seen what the cyclists do? Some (not all!) ride off-trail, create new bends in trails and tromp on vegetation. Should all cyclists be banned then from the foothills?

Instead of choosing which of the three groups is most entitled, why not recognize and acknowledge all three are equal and all should be entitled to the use and enjoyment of the foothills? Why not address everyone’s needs and accomplish this by allocating the foothills trails into three categories: (i) people only, (ii) people and pets, and (iii) cyclists? Then, to be fair to everyone AND the vegetation and wildlife, rotate the allocation schedule every couple of years?

I suggest this is the best solution all around for everyone, that addresses everyone’s concerns, and meets everyone’s needs and desires without depriving any one particular group.

How’s that for an intelligent compromise?

I also suggest that rude, out-of-control, off-trail cyclists be fined, too, for habitat destruction.

Otherwise, if we just ban dogs from trails, we need to ban cyclists and we need to ban camping, too, since a few bad apples should deprive all the rest from the enjoyment, no?

I didn’t read anything about hating mom and apple pie. I thought the author was talking about irresponsible dog owners and the fact that Boise City Code is for all dogs to be leashing in parks, not to mention for the owners to pick up after them. Cyclops must have just recently immagrated here.

Dog Owner proposed an “intelligent compromise” in post #9, but it will be ignored by 99% of Boiseans, and by 100% of those who govern us.

My tolerance for being governed is rapidly evaporating.

Where is it in any city charter, any statement of citizen rights, or any other concept of citizenship that a persons hobbies rate special treatment in allocating resources. No one has a right to use city property in a manner that is to the detriment of others simply because they desire to own a pet. Their pet rights end at their property line. If they want to run fido, buy a farm. Don’t expect fido’s little surprises to be welcomed by other folk who also have a right to use the parks without doggie mines.

Dog Owner, I believe what JIMV was relating was that too many people have too much dog for their property and then feel its their right to inflict said dog on the rest of us. Those who put large dogs in small living conditions are not being fair to the dog either.

I hate the dog poop at the Depot, the Parks, in my front yard (not from my dog as he goes in the back). Dogs run around down my street without a human and when I call Animal Control they never come!
From Scotch Pines Dog Training, lesson number 8 handout:
“REMEMBER: A DOG WHO MUST BE KEPT ON LEASH IS NO MORE THAN A SLAVE. WORK HARD TO ELEVATE YOUR DOG TO THE TRUSTED STATUS OF FRIEND!”
Got that just last week. My little buddy stays on leash due to laws, traffic, and consideration for others. Not always in that order.

“In response to JIMV, you suggest that those who want to run Fido should buy a farm. Well, that’s a wonderful suggestion that is 50-year’s too late. Have you noticed our subdivision landscape in this valley and many other cities? The typical family still has a pet dog, but the typical family can no longer afford to buy a farm. And homes aren’t being built on much land anymore(often 1/4 acre or less.) Have you noticed these changes?”

Demographics and home ownership have changed so now non dog owners must put up with doggie mines on public property! Or worse, be expected to pay taxes so Fido can poop where ever his owners desire!!…Sorry, your rights to your dog end on our property line, not the middle of my yard.

Anne: We are grumpier than we used to be. My spouse and I sometimes comment on how things have changed. No one carried little plastic bags to pick up dog poop. We figured it was good for the soil and if someone stepped in it – well, that wasn’t the end of the world.

We also didn’t have “play dates” for our dogs (or children)and we mostly left them (the dogs, not the children) in our back yards or living rooms but would take them with us to run free at Sandy Beach (or whatever it is called these days.) No one would take a grumpy dog out into the general public because it would be a lot of work keeping them under control. I haven’t owned a dog in many years because it looks like way too much work these days.

I think a lot of people younger than me think their dogs and children are way too special and don’t care if they are a pain in the butt – kids and dogs – to everyone else.

Of course, I had an injury from a neighbor’s dog a few years ago that cost me a lot of money and loss of the ability to walk for a couple of weeks, and one of my adult children had her face ripped open by a “rescued” German Shepherd, which caused much pain and lots of money to repair, so I now am very concerned when I see a dog off leash.