Today I had the honor of interviewing Sgt. Allen Hill for my radio show, Pets In the City on Pet Life Radio. If you haven't done so already, please visit the Pet Life Radio site now, click on my show, "Pets In the City" and subscribe to it. It's so easy and you can download it right to your iPod.
Sounds bites and small video clips about the ongoing war in Iraq and Afghanistan filter into the airwaves and onto the Web everyday. But they don’t really convey the physical and psychological demands U.S. soldiers endure on a daily basis while serving in one of the most politically and culturally complex wars of our time. Often, these soldiers come back both physically and mentally scarred when they return home. Sergeant Allen Hill, an Iraqi war veteran is one example.
Upon returning home, Sgt. Hill continued to suffer the devestating effects of a major brain injury sustained during his service in Iraq, including lingering stress, depression, nightmares, and anxiety. His therapy dog, Frankie, was trained by an inmate serving time for manslaughter at the Fishkill Correctional Facility in Beacon, New York, just a commuter train ride north of New York City. I spoke with Sgt. Hill and Gloria Gilbert Stoga, who founded the “Puppies Behind Bars” program to train guide dogs over a decade ago, and whose group recently added the “Dog Tags: Service Dogs for Those Who’ve Served Us” program. All three appeared on a recent episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show, joined by actress Glenn Close, in a show devoted to the animals in our lives. In addition to sharing how much Frankie has changed his life, Sgt. Hill gave us his thoughts on how the military views and responds to an increasing number of soldiers suffering from mental rather than physical disability.
Military Dogs, Sometimes Viewed As Surplus, Often Euthanized
Talking with Sgt. Hill got me to thinking about not only therapy dogs who help our returning veterans come back into 'normal' civilian life, but the highly-trained military dogs (scouts, bomb-sniffing, guard duty) who serve alongside their human comrades in war-torn areas of Iraq and Afghanistan. (Put aside, for a second, the current controversy surrounding a handful of misguided military troops who may have used angry dogs and other means of torture against prisoners of war. This is indeed a most important issue deserving of vigilance and justice, but it is not the subject here.)
In the past, most sadly in the Vietnam War, combat military dogs were destroyed, put down, euthanized--anyway you put it--after the war ended or their 'services' were no longer needed. I wondered if this was still the case with the dogs serving in the Iraq/Afghanistan war; are they or will they be euthanized when their time is served?
To answer this question, I asked Vietnam War Veteran Ron Aiello, president of the
United States War Dogs Association, who served as a Marine Scout Dog Handler in Vietnam with his own military dog, 'Stormy.' Groups like his exist for just this purpose--to bring, as his website says, 'every soldier home', including K9s.
Some of these dogs, unfortunately, still 'fall through the cracks' according to Aiello, but groups like his try to find as many adoptive homes for former military dogs as possible. Read "Dexter's Story" for a scenario which occurred less than six months ago at href="http://www.militaryworkingdogadoptions.com/OPERATIONDexterFlies.html.
There is no official tally for the number of military dogs now serving in various Middle East conflicts (Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and surrounding countries) but Aiello puts the number at about 700 to 800.
Why do some military dogs, after serving their country in various capacities, still end up euthanized when there is no longer any need for their services?
"There was a problem with the system that no one saw until recently," Aiello says. Before deployment, most military dogs are trained at the Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. After they are deployed, whether it be in areas of active conflict or at US military bases in Germany, Italy, Korea or other allies, Aiello and others assumed the dogs were shipped back to Lackland where they would be officially retired from duty and then available for adoption. "We were wrong," he says.
Instead of shipping the dogs back to their home based in Lackland, dogs were typically retired in the country they were based. If they are not adopted in the country in which they were retired it is highly likely they will be destroyed. Additionally, the U.S. military will not pay for the transport of an animal back to the United States, even if their is a willing adopter. Organizations like Aiellos raise money to help cover the cost of bringing them home.
I also asked Aiello if there was another factor contributing to the euthanization of military animals; could it be that they just simply weren't safe to place with a 'civilian' family environment after having been trained for combat?
"We hooked up with Save A Vet because this organizations Is run by dog handlers who will take any of these military K9's that are more aggressive and will retrain these K9's.They are Military or just recently discharge military handlers who can take care of the more aggressive K9. Most everyone that I have been in contact with (civilians) who have adopted these wonderful K9's . Love them to death. One lady told me that she opened the door to her home and the K9 went in an plopped onto the couch like he had live His whole life there. Another one adopted a K9 3 years ago and the K9 just recently passed away. He apply again and now has aSecond adopted K9.
I hope you'll listen to the next episode of Pets In the City on Pet Life Radio and my interview with Sgt. Hill and Gloria Gilbert Stoga of Puppies Behind Bars. And visit the Puppies Behind Bars and the Military Working Dog Adoptions website, too.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Dog Drama on the Deegan!
From AOL and WABC news (link below.) Original article on AOL includes some rather dramatic video:
http://www.gnn.com/article/loyal-pooch-protects-injured-mother-dog/484199?icid=main|main|dl2|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnn.com%2Farticle%2Floyal-pooch-protects-injured-mother-dog%2F484199
(May 14) - When a 9-year-old female yellow lab-chow mix was hit by a car on a busy New York City highway Thursday morning, her doggy companion ran into traffic to stand guard.The protective pooch turned out to be the injured dog's son. The brown and tan canine would not let anyone near his mother, barking continuously at any oncoming traffic on the Major Deegan Expressway and at the police officers who arrived on the scene to help, WABC reported.
Eventually, the police were able to get close enough to the hurt dog to slide her onto a sheet to transport her to an animal hospital. A vet later said she has a broken leg and possible internal bleeding, but is expected to recover.
As for her loyal rescuer? After his mother was loaded into the police cruiser, the dog ran off. Police gave chase for 45 minutes and were finally able to guide him off the road at an exit ramp. The dogs' owner -- who recognized his wayward pets from news reports -- says the brave boy is safe at home.
The extraordinary scene snarled rush-hour traffic and was caught on tape by news helicopters. Watch the WABC news report and raw video below.
Note: The news report initially identified the hurt dog as male. Police later confirmed that she is female and the mother of the other dog.
http://www.gnn.com/article/loyal-pooch-protects-injured-mother-dog/484199?icid=main|main|dl2|link5|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gnn.com%2Farticle%2Floyal-pooch-protects-injured-mother-dog%2F484199
(May 14) - When a 9-year-old female yellow lab-chow mix was hit by a car on a busy New York City highway Thursday morning, her doggy companion ran into traffic to stand guard.The protective pooch turned out to be the injured dog's son. The brown and tan canine would not let anyone near his mother, barking continuously at any oncoming traffic on the Major Deegan Expressway and at the police officers who arrived on the scene to help, WABC reported.
Eventually, the police were able to get close enough to the hurt dog to slide her onto a sheet to transport her to an animal hospital. A vet later said she has a broken leg and possible internal bleeding, but is expected to recover.
As for her loyal rescuer? After his mother was loaded into the police cruiser, the dog ran off. Police gave chase for 45 minutes and were finally able to guide him off the road at an exit ramp. The dogs' owner -- who recognized his wayward pets from news reports -- says the brave boy is safe at home.
The extraordinary scene snarled rush-hour traffic and was caught on tape by news helicopters. Watch the WABC news report and raw video below.
Note: The news report initially identified the hurt dog as male. Police later confirmed that she is female and the mother of the other dog.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Exclusive Interview NYCHA On The Pit Bull and Other Large Dog Ban in Public Housing
As this is a developing (and ever-changing story) here is an excerpt from a Q & A type interview I had with Howard Marder, spokesperson for the New York City Housing Authority, shortly before the 'breed ban' (pits, rotties and dobies) "officially" went into effect. We are continuing to follow this story through a myriad of public hearings and continued questions from various parts of the community.
Indeed, there are some (as Mr. Marder himself eludes to) that are in full support of the ban. We'll bring news to you on that, too, as it emerges.
Diane West: It is my understanding that New York State has a law banning 'breed discrimination' (counties of New York cannot make a law contradicting this). In other words, a ban on owning pit bulls, etc. How is NYCHA getting around this? Did they meet with state lawmakers about this or is NYCHA exempt from this law, and if so, why?
Howard Marder: The law you refer to, is Article 7 of the Agriculture and Markets law, Section 107 (5). That section prohibits a municipality from regulating specific breeds of dogs. NYCHA is not a municipality. The rule does not apply.
DW: Is this officially called a 'regulation' concerning NYCHA buildings only? What constitutes a building that falls under the NYCHA umbrella? Section 8 and/or other subsidized, such as Mitchell-Lama or others? All boroughs of New York City?
HM: It is applicable in NYCHA owned and operated buildings. It never applied to Mitchell Lama. NYCHA only provides subsidy to Section 8 tenants and does not own or manage the buildings in which the vouchers are used, so it does not apply to them. However, if there is a building that receives Project-Based Section 8, the rule does apply.
DW: How many people is this likely to affect throughout NYCHA residences?
HM: We have no idea because if people are not registering their pets, there is no mechanism for us to do a pet census. Anyone living in a NYCHA apartment today has the ability and responsibility to register their pet under the old policy.
DW: When was this first enacted, and what event/s precipitated it? Were their public discussions or other notices to the public about this poss ible change, and if so, how/where were they announced?
HM: The pet rules came effect with the passage of Federal guidelines requiring all public housing authorities in the U.S. develop their own policies to allow residents to own one or more common household pets. NYCHA’s 40-lb. weight rule was instituted in May 2002. NYCHA announced the change in pet policy to our residents in mid-March by letter to each household and by articles in the Housing Authority newspaper, The Journal.
DW: Why/how did NYCHA come upon the ban of no animals over 25 lbs as opposed to 40lbs? (which documents said was the rule previous.) Is there some kind of study or other reason which made NYCHA decide on this weight?
HM: NYCHA had the 40-lb rule from May 2002 till the present and, in many instances, NYCHA and its residents saw that it did not work. It created a number of problems such as those caused by larger, menacing and dangerous dogs and dogs that the NYPD complained were threatening and vicious. The larger dogs were simply creating a problem because of the density in our buildings with the limited elevator and hallway space by which our residents could traverse. Many of these situations are complicated when there are large dogs.
DW: There is an extensive lists of breeds (full and 'mixed') on the list (below.) How did you decide upon these breeds? In particular you seem to put emphasis on "Pit bull, Rottweiler, Doberman , Chow, Boxer, Akita, German Shepherd". Again, is there a particular reason, study or justification for this? Why dogs such as Dalmatians, Golden Retrievers, and several breeds of terrier?
HM: The NYCHA Pet Policy Overview has been updated. (see the link to our website) http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/pet_policy_overview.pdf . It now prohibits three breeds, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Doberman Pinchers.
DW: There is also a provision for 'one cat per apartment'. Is this correct? So in other words, a tenant may either have one 'approved' dog or one 'approved' cat (not one of each?) Why were cats included in the new regulations? Also, a 'reasonable amount' of other animals (birds, etc.) What is a 'reasonable amount'?
HM: The rules provide for either one dog or one cat, not both. That has been in place since May 2002.
DW: How will these regulations be enforced? Will NYCHA representatives or building agents be looking in apartments or patrolling grounds? What happens if someone is not in compliance?
HM: NYCHA will use its limited resources to address lease violations such as this as well as all other lease violations or Quality Of Life infringements or crimes as it is made aware of them. NYCHA has and will continue to cooperate with the NYPD for any City-initiated enforcement efforts.
DW: Will there be a grace period for people who have animals grandfathered in to get what you are asking them? (ie, licenses, vets/vaccination/etc?) As paying this all at once may be a hardship for some.
HM: As the pet policy overview makes clear, a person just has to submit the registration form before the May 1 deadline to register a pet that hasn’t previously been registered, to register it. Residents will be given a grace period of 90 days after submission of the registration form to comply with other requirements, such as veterinarian examination, spaying and neutering, rabies inoculation and Health Dept. licensing
DW: If one has, say, a pit bull, or Rottweiler, or other right now, they do not have to give it up, but it must be registered. After this animal passes away, it cannot be 'replaced' with a 'new' pit bull, etc., but only a pet on the approved list. (I just want to make sure that people understand whether they have to give up their animal or not come May 1st.) Have you reached out to the shelters and adoption groups in the NYC area re this and its possible ramifications?
HM: Nobody will have to give up a previously existing pet that complies with the old policy (dogs up to 40 lbs and breed restriction) if it is registered before the May 1 deadline. We have had discussions with the ASPCA and the Mayor’s Alliance for NYC’s Animals concerning our pet policy.
DW: Are there exceptions for 'service animals' (even if they are on the 'banned' list? Section 8 residents don't have to pay a fee (but do have to license and vet.)
HM: Verified Service animals are exempt from any breed restriction or weight limit. As mentioned, this does not apply to Section 8 voucher holders living in private buildings.. It does apply to Section 8 project based residents since they are in a NYCHA owned building.
DW: Just FYI-- Are you aware the online-license form has been intermittently down for a few months now?
HM: There is an additional 90 day grace period to comply. As with any rule good faith attempts to comply that are made difficult by external sources are taken into consideration.
Indeed, there are some (as Mr. Marder himself eludes to) that are in full support of the ban. We'll bring news to you on that, too, as it emerges.
Diane West: It is my understanding that New York State has a law banning 'breed discrimination' (counties of New York cannot make a law contradicting this). In other words, a ban on owning pit bulls, etc. How is NYCHA getting around this? Did they meet with state lawmakers about this or is NYCHA exempt from this law, and if so, why?
Howard Marder: The law you refer to, is Article 7 of the Agriculture and Markets law, Section 107 (5). That section prohibits a municipality from regulating specific breeds of dogs. NYCHA is not a municipality. The rule does not apply.
DW: Is this officially called a 'regulation' concerning NYCHA buildings only? What constitutes a building that falls under the NYCHA umbrella? Section 8 and/or other subsidized, such as Mitchell-Lama or others? All boroughs of New York City?
HM: It is applicable in NYCHA owned and operated buildings. It never applied to Mitchell Lama. NYCHA only provides subsidy to Section 8 tenants and does not own or manage the buildings in which the vouchers are used, so it does not apply to them. However, if there is a building that receives Project-Based Section 8, the rule does apply.
DW: How many people is this likely to affect throughout NYCHA residences?
HM: We have no idea because if people are not registering their pets, there is no mechanism for us to do a pet census. Anyone living in a NYCHA apartment today has the ability and responsibility to register their pet under the old policy.
DW: When was this first enacted, and what event/s precipitated it? Were their public discussions or other notices to the public about this poss ible change, and if so, how/where were they announced?
HM: The pet rules came effect with the passage of Federal guidelines requiring all public housing authorities in the U.S. develop their own policies to allow residents to own one or more common household pets. NYCHA’s 40-lb. weight rule was instituted in May 2002. NYCHA announced the change in pet policy to our residents in mid-March by letter to each household and by articles in the Housing Authority newspaper, The Journal.
DW: Why/how did NYCHA come upon the ban of no animals over 25 lbs as opposed to 40lbs? (which documents said was the rule previous.) Is there some kind of study or other reason which made NYCHA decide on this weight?
HM: NYCHA had the 40-lb rule from May 2002 till the present and, in many instances, NYCHA and its residents saw that it did not work. It created a number of problems such as those caused by larger, menacing and dangerous dogs and dogs that the NYPD complained were threatening and vicious. The larger dogs were simply creating a problem because of the density in our buildings with the limited elevator and hallway space by which our residents could traverse. Many of these situations are complicated when there are large dogs.
DW: There is an extensive lists of breeds (full and 'mixed') on the list (below.) How did you decide upon these breeds? In particular you seem to put emphasis on "Pit bull, Rottweiler, Doberman , Chow, Boxer, Akita, German Shepherd". Again, is there a particular reason, study or justification for this? Why dogs such as Dalmatians, Golden Retrievers, and several breeds of terrier?
HM: The NYCHA Pet Policy Overview has been updated. (see the link to our website) http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/downloads/pdf/pet_policy_overview.pdf . It now prohibits three breeds, Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Doberman Pinchers.
DW: There is also a provision for 'one cat per apartment'. Is this correct? So in other words, a tenant may either have one 'approved' dog or one 'approved' cat (not one of each?) Why were cats included in the new regulations? Also, a 'reasonable amount' of other animals (birds, etc.) What is a 'reasonable amount'?
HM: The rules provide for either one dog or one cat, not both. That has been in place since May 2002.
DW: How will these regulations be enforced? Will NYCHA representatives or building agents be looking in apartments or patrolling grounds? What happens if someone is not in compliance?
HM: NYCHA will use its limited resources to address lease violations such as this as well as all other lease violations or Quality Of Life infringements or crimes as it is made aware of them. NYCHA has and will continue to cooperate with the NYPD for any City-initiated enforcement efforts.
DW: Will there be a grace period for people who have animals grandfathered in to get what you are asking them? (ie, licenses, vets/vaccination/etc?) As paying this all at once may be a hardship for some.
HM: As the pet policy overview makes clear, a person just has to submit the registration form before the May 1 deadline to register a pet that hasn’t previously been registered, to register it. Residents will be given a grace period of 90 days after submission of the registration form to comply with other requirements, such as veterinarian examination, spaying and neutering, rabies inoculation and Health Dept. licensing
DW: If one has, say, a pit bull, or Rottweiler, or other right now, they do not have to give it up, but it must be registered. After this animal passes away, it cannot be 'replaced' with a 'new' pit bull, etc., but only a pet on the approved list. (I just want to make sure that people understand whether they have to give up their animal or not come May 1st.) Have you reached out to the shelters and adoption groups in the NYC area re this and its possible ramifications?
HM: Nobody will have to give up a previously existing pet that complies with the old policy (dogs up to 40 lbs and breed restriction) if it is registered before the May 1 deadline. We have had discussions with the ASPCA and the Mayor’s Alliance for NYC’s Animals concerning our pet policy.
DW: Are there exceptions for 'service animals' (even if they are on the 'banned' list? Section 8 residents don't have to pay a fee (but do have to license and vet.)
HM: Verified Service animals are exempt from any breed restriction or weight limit. As mentioned, this does not apply to Section 8 voucher holders living in private buildings.. It does apply to Section 8 project based residents since they are in a NYCHA owned building.
DW: Just FYI-- Are you aware the online-license form has been intermittently down for a few months now?
HM: There is an additional 90 day grace period to comply. As with any rule good faith attempts to comply that are made difficult by external sources are taken into consideration.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Beware of Birder -- Dogs In City Parks Are Being Watched
Mistress Chilli's devoted assistant, Diane, attended a most enlightening meeting of the leaders of many of the dog parks throughout the five boroughs of New York City collectively known as NYC DOG. We came back with a number of great story leads which will keep us busy for a good while. For now, however, kudos to Bob Marino, head of NYC DOG, who gave everyone a head's up on the following front-page headline in the New York Post today:
"Ruff Justice" (an article about Orrin Tilevitz, bird watcher, dog hater)http://www.nypost.com/seven/05102009/news/regionalnews/he_shooed_the_pooch_168519.htm
Mr. Tilevitz is an avid bird watcher who truly feels dogs are the scurge of city parks. He has a particular, eh, bone to pick with the dogs in Prospect Park. Like many parks throughout New York City, Prospect Park avails themselves of designated "off leash hours" (before 9am and after 9pm) where dogs can run off-leash. All other times they are supposed to be leashed, and Orrin is a one-man police force to track these violators down. For some time now, it's been an open secret in Prospect Park that Mr. Tilevitz hides in bushes, behind trees (some reports say even IN trees) to tape violators who have their dogs off-leash during undesignated times in undesignated areas.
Hmmm...how does Mistress Chilli weigh in on this? Well, she'd mentioned that there were rumors of people hiding in bushes and trees a few years back in an article in New York Tails Magazine based on several trusted sources reporting as such. The real question is: does Mr. Tilevitz have a legitamet complaint?
As much as Mistress Chilli loves dogs and has been a supporter of off-leash hours for quite a while, she has to say, yes, he might. She has personally (and often) observed dogs running around off-leash in Central Park outside of the "9 to 9" hours, and in areas where they should not be, such as the bridle path, where an occassional horse may come by (not a good meeting.) She has also seen dog owners who think it is 'funny' to see their dogs run into a pack of pigeons to scatter them, or to chase a squirrel up a tree. So yes, there are some dog owners who just don't get it.
But, then again, there are some parents who just don't get that their little darlings cannot run wild, either. Indeed, Diane was on her way to a friend's mom's wake in Queens yesterday and got plowed by a pig-tailed girl on a pink bike on the sidewalk. As she picked leaves out of her hair from the bush she was thrown into (by the way, the little girl kept going) her mother shot Diane a dirty look and said "well, I tried to tell you to watch out." (!!!!) Now Diane didn't have the best parents in the world in her early years, but suffice it to say if she did such a thing not only would the next thing she'd see would be the knuckle-side of her mother's hand, but she would be dragged to the victim, made to apologize, and probably had her bike taken away for the rest of the summer. She's not condoning this now, but the girl should have been a.) kept under control in the first place and b.) made to apologize and ask if the victim (me) was okay.
So, how does this relate back to the off-leash dog question? Unfortunately, it only takes one dog and dog owner to come across someone like Mr. Tilevitz to start a civil war. NYC DOG members, by and large, are impressively self-policing and will come down hardest on each other when they hear of an infraction. But not everyone is a member of NYC DOG in New York City, and that's a shame.
Is Mr. Tilevitz overreacting, oh, perhaps just a little bit? I'd say so. He probably should be arrested for stalking and invasion of privacy, and perhaps find another hobby in addition to bird watching. The parks of New York City are, indeed, blessed with wildlife, including wonderful species of birds. Dogs should not be allowed to harrass the birds (nor should anyone else be allowed to harrass the birds, for that matter) and it is incumbant upon the dog owners, or whoever is in control of the dog, to stop them from doing so.
But Mr. Tilevitz, with all due respect, it may be time for you to dig down and examine your dog issues. Hat's off to you for trying to protect the birds of the parks, but you may be getting a wee too obsessed-much?
"Ruff Justice" (an article about Orrin Tilevitz, bird watcher, dog hater)http://www.nypost.com/seven/05102009/news/regionalnews/he_shooed_the_pooch_168519.htm
Mr. Tilevitz is an avid bird watcher who truly feels dogs are the scurge of city parks. He has a particular, eh, bone to pick with the dogs in Prospect Park. Like many parks throughout New York City, Prospect Park avails themselves of designated "off leash hours" (before 9am and after 9pm) where dogs can run off-leash. All other times they are supposed to be leashed, and Orrin is a one-man police force to track these violators down. For some time now, it's been an open secret in Prospect Park that Mr. Tilevitz hides in bushes, behind trees (some reports say even IN trees) to tape violators who have their dogs off-leash during undesignated times in undesignated areas.
Hmmm...how does Mistress Chilli weigh in on this? Well, she'd mentioned that there were rumors of people hiding in bushes and trees a few years back in an article in New York Tails Magazine based on several trusted sources reporting as such. The real question is: does Mr. Tilevitz have a legitamet complaint?
As much as Mistress Chilli loves dogs and has been a supporter of off-leash hours for quite a while, she has to say, yes, he might. She has personally (and often) observed dogs running around off-leash in Central Park outside of the "9 to 9" hours, and in areas where they should not be, such as the bridle path, where an occassional horse may come by (not a good meeting.) She has also seen dog owners who think it is 'funny' to see their dogs run into a pack of pigeons to scatter them, or to chase a squirrel up a tree. So yes, there are some dog owners who just don't get it.
But, then again, there are some parents who just don't get that their little darlings cannot run wild, either. Indeed, Diane was on her way to a friend's mom's wake in Queens yesterday and got plowed by a pig-tailed girl on a pink bike on the sidewalk. As she picked leaves out of her hair from the bush she was thrown into (by the way, the little girl kept going) her mother shot Diane a dirty look and said "well, I tried to tell you to watch out." (!!!!) Now Diane didn't have the best parents in the world in her early years, but suffice it to say if she did such a thing not only would the next thing she'd see would be the knuckle-side of her mother's hand, but she would be dragged to the victim, made to apologize, and probably had her bike taken away for the rest of the summer. She's not condoning this now, but the girl should have been a.) kept under control in the first place and b.) made to apologize and ask if the victim (me) was okay.
So, how does this relate back to the off-leash dog question? Unfortunately, it only takes one dog and dog owner to come across someone like Mr. Tilevitz to start a civil war. NYC DOG members, by and large, are impressively self-policing and will come down hardest on each other when they hear of an infraction. But not everyone is a member of NYC DOG in New York City, and that's a shame.
Is Mr. Tilevitz overreacting, oh, perhaps just a little bit? I'd say so. He probably should be arrested for stalking and invasion of privacy, and perhaps find another hobby in addition to bird watching. The parks of New York City are, indeed, blessed with wildlife, including wonderful species of birds. Dogs should not be allowed to harrass the birds (nor should anyone else be allowed to harrass the birds, for that matter) and it is incumbant upon the dog owners, or whoever is in control of the dog, to stop them from doing so.
But Mr. Tilevitz, with all due respect, it may be time for you to dig down and examine your dog issues. Hat's off to you for trying to protect the birds of the parks, but you may be getting a wee too obsessed-much?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
