As last winter receded, the Williamstown Board of Health discovered accumulated dog feces at the Spruces, a park in Williamstown. Although the town supplied doggy bags at the site, many dog owners allowed their dogs to run free, making it hard to pick up after them. A debate ensued, so far unresolved, as to whether dogs should be allowed to be off-leash on town public lands — an issue other Berkshire communities face as well.
Dogs should be allowed to run free somewhere. Full flight on a woodland trail or grassy field appears to bring joy to the dog — and to its owner.
Recognizing that, some property owners, instead of requiring dogs be leashed, create a category of allowing dogs “under voice control.” Some dogs are that well trained no doubt, but, since we now consider dogs members of our family rather than our employees, I doubt many. Most of us don’t expect absolute obedience from our children or our dogs.
Are dogs being singled out for restrictions? We don’t require horseback riders to bag horse poop on the trail, intriguing as that image might be. In fact, horses are credited with fertilizing a field. There is a diet difference, however. Horses don’t eat meat; most dogs do. Horse droppings seem relatively inoffensive, as soon as they dry anyway. Besides, there are far more dogs than horses.
There are considerations deeper than doodoo. For example, Mass Audubon doesn’t allow dogs, leashed or not, on its wildlife sanctuaries. Of course not. Dogs chase chipmunks, squirrels, rabbits. They could trample sensitive plants. Dogs are really an invasive species in a sanctuary, capable of totally disorganizing the ecosystem.
What about land that municipalities and the state Legislature have set aside for conservation? How different are they from Pleasant Valley? Often these parcels contain rare and endangered species, areas of critical environmental concern, special habitats. The Appalachian crayfish is a thing. Some parcels might not be all that special — as far as we now know. Shouldn’t use of conserved land at least require people to leash their dogs and pick up after them?
What about park land, where recreation is allowed? We must recognize that some people, perhaps because of a bad experience, are afraid of dogs. Children might be nervous about dogs. And some people just don’t like big dogs jumping up on them. If bicycling is part of park activities, even otherwise sane dogs seem to have a fascination of rotating petals. And no one wants to step in poop. That’s hard to avoid, whether out walking or writing about dogs.
We’ve been discussing protecting land. What about protecting pets? Dogs on the loose could encounter porcupines, skunks, coyotes, even bears in the wild, coming away sadder but wiser, depending on the dog. Dogs do get lost in the woods. We see signs offering rewards for finding them all the time. Or a house pet could, at midlife, decide it was time to follow a through-hiker to Mount Katahdin.
It would seem to be an ideal solution that dogs run free in a fenced area, devoid of endangered species or competing human uses, provided some provision was made for cleaning up. Probably wildlife would soon move out. Nature would survive elsewhere and dogs wouldn’t bite bikers or discover their wanderlust.
North Adams, Pittsfield and Egremont have dog parks. Unfortunately the Spruces, mentioned before, is located in a floodplain where the feds won’t allow fences. Maybe another parcel? Dogs should have their day.
At least, that’s how it looks from the White Oaks.
Lauren R. Stevens writes a regular environmental column for the Eagle.
