I 100% agree with this take. I break rules when I find them to be unnecessary or overbearing. And it’s true that a lot of rules, like leash policies, are often designed with worst case scenarios in mind. I would be more likely to change my behavior because of a better understanding of why the rule exists rather than by fear of enforcement.
Agree with what you say - but I am puzzled by what could be confusing to people about those two signs. They very clearly state what is required … no dogs for the first one and dogs on leash for the second. How could anyone not understand?
Our county open space department ordered a large number of very inexpensive leashes with the name of the county open space department printed on them (from a company that specializes in inexpensive handouts). When county open space volunteers (like me) are hiking on the trails, we carry several of them in our pockets. Then, when we encounter someone on the trail with a dog off leash, we politely strike up a conversation, such as, “Hi! What a beautiful dog you have. Did you know that there are rattlesnakes in this area (or other hazards that could hurt a dog)? I’m so sorry that you forgot your dog’s leash. Fortunately, I just happen to have one in my pocket for you. Here! Have a great day, and keep your dog safe!” I don’t do this for every person I see with a dog off leash (too expensive for the county), but when I do, I invariably get wonderful comments from the dog owners. Also, it is great public relations for our county’s open space program. When I run out of leashes, I still usually try the positive approach–complimenting the dog, perhaps saying how sorry I am that they forgot the dogs leash, and indicating why it is to their advantage to have the dog on a leash. Making it personal with a positive message instead of a pejorative one seems to work better for me most of the time, but of course, not always!
Honestly, for safety’s sake, I don’t say anything. I’m usually walking by myself, and I don’t know the person I’d be confronting or how they would respond, so I’m wary of calling people out. To be fair, I haven’t really encountered that many rule breakers. Cyclists once on a trail where bikes are prohibited. I don’t know why it’s prohibited–the signs don’t say, but the trail is narrow, so maybe it’s for safety. I do wish people were a little more careful about careening down trails like these at high speed and staying off the ones that clearly prohibit biking.
Rules are tricky. Sometimes I think the preservationist tendencies get a little out of hand. For example, in some urban nature preserves there are explicit rules against picking berries. But a blackberry bush in a restored prairie is a source of propagule pressure, and if humans eat the berries it might be better than if birds eat them and poop them out nearby. Similarly, dogs on leash aren’t all bad in such a place. Overabundant deer and rabbits might be slightly inhibited by dog scent and sign. It’s all a question of balance, but if in doubt I think it’s good to give humans a participatory role in nature. We might value a place more and spend more time there if we can pick a few berries or fish in the pond.
Let me take a different approach. First, I worked for the US Forest Service for 17 years as an ecologist. We were told, “Do not approach the public about breaking the law. Notify law enforcement.” My point is simple. You are not a law enforcement officer. Bringing up the topic can endanger you and those you are with. Second, a two week course in the economics of biology really enlightened me about something known as “willingness to pay.” Rather than dwell on it, I will put it in a law enforcement perspective. Is the public willing to pay for law enforcement? Are we ready to make having a dog in a prohibited area involve a fine of $50, $500, $5000, or $50,000, jail time, the death penalty for the dog or human? My point? Despite the biological importance as one sign above indicates, people will not put up with some restrictions like no dog or no running (as discussed above). There’s not a willingness amoungst us humans to abide by some restrictions. As a society, we are not willing to seriously address some issues (think climate change). There’s no way I’m going to talk to someone about their dog. It’s not worth risking my life.
Yes, I understand how caution would be warranted particularly in nations where social convention allows people who are neither actively hunting nor involved in law enforcement to go around carrying guns… quite a bizarre thing, looking in from the outside!
I report them every time. I love dogs but I cannot stand people who decide they’re more important than everyone else and just do want they want rather than follow the rules.
Rules are there for a reason, and if people think they are wrong or don’t apply to them, then they should stop being so lazy and actually do something about changing or clarifying them.
I reckon we should penalise dogs for bringing their idiot owners along with them. The dogs would be more likely to change their behaviour…
I’ve been to China four times and feel much safer there than in the US. My son made a trip and asked a policeman if he had ever seen a criminal with a gun. The man said no. So much for “only criminals will have guns.” China also has much less of a drug problem than the US, with the death penalty for major drug dealers; seems to work. Both the US and China incarcerate people at about the same rates, more than 1% of the population; what a waste.
The various sources cited in the Wikipedia article say that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world (at 0.7% of the population). China’s is also horrendous, estimated at 0.16% of the population by the higher of the two estimation methods cited; this is, however, less than a quarter of the incarceration rate in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_United_States_incarceration_rate_with_other_countries
My first thought on it is 99% of convictions in Russia, where most laws are not working in life. I tell you, if you are not allowed to have a gun it doesn’t mean you can’t go around with it and it doesn’t mean you can’t buy law enforcement worker or just can’t be part of law system hunting on rare animals from the damn helicopter.
I find that (to paraphrase a reptile blog I read recently) that facts do not matter to people who do not value facts. I will mention the “no dogs” or “dog on leash only” rules to a person if doing so is with the intent of keeping the dog safe. I have scolded people for bringing their geriatric dog “out for a walk” in mid-day Texas heat in the summer but walked them back to the parking lot with my two extra bottles of cold water to keep the poor dog from suffering heat exhaustion.
Then there is willful stupidity – the “regular” that brings his dog to our local nature center every morning and lets the dog roam off leash. I say willful stupidity, because the first time I saw him I warned him that there was a venomous snake in a particular spot and suggested he leash his dog for the dog’s safety. “Oh, I know, we lost our other dog to a rattlesnake bite here last year.” Still no leash. Willful stupidity and no common sense don’t respond to reason, so I don’t try.
I told a woman with a dog off leash once that I had just seen a rattlesnake and she should be careful so her dog wouldn’t get bit. She replied, he’s been bit before and he’s now immune to rattlesnakes.
I try to act like I’m on their side, and giving them a heads up - “hey man, the rangers out here are super serious about the ‘no dogs’ thing, my friend got a huuuuge fine for having his dog off leash” or “watch out if you’re going to climb those rocks, they’re loaded with black widow spiders!”
It usually works in the short term at least.
Years ago I was picnicking at Pinelles Park in Florida with some friends. Suddenly I heard a ranger shouting at a group of people across the stream from us. I heard a splash in the stream and a three to four foot alligator headed straight for me. I jumped on top of the picnic table like an athlete. The ranger kicked them out of the park for being stupid enough to feed the gator. I’m just glad I didn’t feed it.
Your post reminded me that I took a photo a while back of a sign in a local park with a list of rules and a phone number for reporting offenders. I meant to program the number into my phone but hadn’t gotten around to it.
Today I did. (Thank you!)
Not all parks have such signs, but if they do it’s worth noting the number in case you see something. And, yes, photographing it and putting it in your phone months later is OK. So if you see someone breaking the rules you don’t need to confront them, just call.
On a related note, I often program the number for a visitor center or park rangers in my phone if I’ll be going alone. It’s probably my Girl Scout experience: we called it the “buddy system” but if I don’t have a buddy a mobile phone is a pretty good substitute. Fortunately I’ve never had a problem when walking alone, but one of our bird walks came across a woman lying unconscious on a beach and we had to call 911.
Rattlesnakes? That would send me running! But then I’m a city girl at heart–and we only have small, nonvenomous snakes here (green, brown, garter).
Carrying leashes is a clever way to deal with the problem.
Small update to this, I let the local ranger office know and they responded quite nicely. I have his personal number now and was told to contact him if any violations occur.
Throughout the thread I appreciate everyone’s honest responses, I hope everyone will do their part as comfortable to help improve our relationship with wildlife/natural areas/community. I do think taking a picture of the rules is a good idea as well!
Best,
M
I think the problem with “rules” is that they take away some freedom, some amount of one’s sovereignty, which is why I think it is more important to say why not to do something as opposed to just saying that it shouldn’t be done. If people really care about the ovenbirds nesting in a particular forest, they aren’t going to let their dogs run off-leash and disturb the birds.
I’ve been fishing recently on a river near my home, and I always find the gate at the parking area open (despite a large sign up next to the gate explaining why people aren’t allowed to drive in) after someone has decided they were too lazy to walk the quarter mile trail to the river (and one of these people calls himself an “outdoorsman”, yeah, sure). I’ve mentioned it to these people, and they are always very nice about it, saying that they didn’t know about the sign, but several of them I’ve caught again. I think if they cared about the woodcock nests they are disturbing or the trout lilies they are driving over, there would be a much better response than having a sign telling people not to drive in.