Reader comments
Off-leash opponents threatening to sue Salt Lake City
24 comments | Read story
B Rigby | 4:52 a.m. Aug. 16, 2007
Are you kidding me? Leash laws? Do we really have any? 9 out of 10 dog owners
already TOTALLY ignore the leash laws now! Owners in my neighborhood rarely if
ever leash their dogs. Most just watch as their dogs "go for it" in
my yard almost every day! Not a dog hater - have a dog ourselves. We
don't take her for many walks anymore - simply because she is on a leash
and no one else's dog is and we always run into a problem. Maybe if
current laws were actually enforced . .. . Oh well, just a thought!
RB | 8:05 a.m. Aug. 16, 2007
The Park was setup by the former owners of the land to be a nature park.
Allowing dogs to free run on this land is counter to the intent use of the park.
Dogs are a threat to other animals and birds that may be left in the park. It
is not right to lay waste this partial of land so that dogs can have the run of
the place.
Comments continue below
SuttonHoo | 9:41 a.m. Aug. 16, 2007
Because it is simply not feasible to enforce leash laws, it comes down to dog
owners being considerate of others. Owners have an obligation to train their
dogs. When in the city, good training means keeping the dog on a leash. If
people are incapable of properly training or handling their dogs, they have no
business owning them. It all comes down to courtesy and respect for others. I am
very surprised that the Sierra Club and other such groups have not weighed in on
this issue. Could it be that their members tend to be the off-leashers?
Bonnie | 2:40 p.m. Aug. 19, 2007
I thought "Friends of" groups usually involved putting in good, hard
work for an area or cause, not just getting publicity for themselves. I live in
the area, walk in the park two or three times a week and have NEVER seen Jeff
Salt or anyone from his "group" doing ANY kind of work in the park.
Anyone who really knows the park knows it has been the off leash people who are
responsible for ALL of the improvements in the park in the last ten years. I
see them pulling weeds, installing boardwalks, removing debris from the stream
all the time. I also see them consistently picking up after their dogs and
after the beer can throwing kids who frequent the park. There is an old adage
-"actions speak louder than words" - think about it.
Ryan from Magna | 10:31 p.m. Aug. 19, 2007
Dogs cause less of the damage than humans do (i.e. tenns using the water as ab
amusement park.) Ducks? Hah! I ve never seen ducks down there in the four
years I ve been using. We have every right to use the park.
stephen and my shaggs | 10:38 p.m. Aug. 19, 2007
I have many thoughts on this disagreement,But really only one word jumps out at
me. EMPATHY
It seems to me its lacking in so many ways in the salt lake city area. why????? just a thought if my little message make you uncomfortable then please join the rest of us and learn and practice some empathy.......its a big world folks there should be room for all.
It seems to me its lacking in so many ways in the salt lake city area. why????? just a thought if my little message make you uncomfortable then please join the rest of us and learn and practice some empathy.......its a big world folks there should be room for all.
Rebecca | 11:14 p.m. Aug. 19, 2007
Are you kidding? This park is safer, cleaner and enjoyed by many, many more
people than would enjoy it if it were an "on leash" area. Let's
be honest, the majority of those who enjoyed this park before it became off
leash were kids going down to get drunk and high. Those of you who want to
enjoy a dog-free, pristine nature area should drive the five extra minutes it
takes to get to Big and Little Cottonwood canyons. Let Parley's be.
Can't we share a few acres with the dogs?
Tim from SLC | 11:49 p.m. Aug. 19, 2007
It's amazing to me that those who are intolerant to dogs off leash find
ways to justify their hatred. Anyone who truly understand dogs knows that this
species has an intrinsic need to run and explore in an unrestrained manner. Off
leash parks are in great demand in our neighborhoods and the popularity of
Parley's is proof of this.
Those that use the "environmental" argument to justify their desired restrictions are not tell the truth. There is nothing pristine or nature-like about a swath of neglected urban gully wedged between two interstates and containing an electrical substation, a bmx bike park and a massive storm drain. Doesn't anyone remember what that area looked like 15 years ago? It was full of trash, a haven for drug use and homeless shanties. Dog owners who like to run their dogs off-leash found this place, improved it over the past 10 years and made the park what it is today.
Now some rich residents above the park don't like that their backyard so busy so they concoct tactic after tactic to try and shut it down. If they wanted control over the area they should have footed the bill to turn it into a gated community instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it with our tax dollars. The insincerity of their "concern for the area" is blatantly obvious. They've done noting to improve it. All you have to do is go down there and see who uses the park. It's not Mr. Salt and his "Friends of Parley's etc." You don't have to believe me. Go down there and see for yourself.
Those that use the "environmental" argument to justify their desired restrictions are not tell the truth. There is nothing pristine or nature-like about a swath of neglected urban gully wedged between two interstates and containing an electrical substation, a bmx bike park and a massive storm drain. Doesn't anyone remember what that area looked like 15 years ago? It was full of trash, a haven for drug use and homeless shanties. Dog owners who like to run their dogs off-leash found this place, improved it over the past 10 years and made the park what it is today.
Now some rich residents above the park don't like that their backyard so busy so they concoct tactic after tactic to try and shut it down. If they wanted control over the area they should have footed the bill to turn it into a gated community instead of expecting the rest of us to pay for it with our tax dollars. The insincerity of their "concern for the area" is blatantly obvious. They've done noting to improve it. All you have to do is go down there and see who uses the park. It's not Mr. Salt and his "Friends of Parley's etc." You don't have to believe me. Go down there and see for yourself.
Mr. Cat | 7:58 a.m. Aug. 20, 2007
Dogs are totally out of control, I cant believe how the dogs have sprayed their
dog graphitti all over places in the park, on the bridges, on the signs, on the
concrete. And have you seen all the particle boards and garbage left behind by
dogs at the run off mouth? its insane. Why do dogs let their little children
dogs use this nature reserve as a water park? They leave such a huge mess and
garbage behind. And this place is a nature reserve?, when did the dogs build a
power station in the middle of that place? And now it looks like the dogs are
doing contruction in the middle of the park? Thats crazy, yeah sure... nature
preserve... right. I also can't believe the damage the dogs have done with
their BMX bikes on the south side of the park. Seriously dogs should take their
BMX bikes somewhere else they are ruining the whole place. I was there last
weekend and I walked through the ford of the stream up by the top, and I stepped
on a beer can. I wish dogs would stop going up there to get drunk, and if they
do need to go up there to get drunk at least dogs could pick up their beer cans.
I agree with all the other dog haters, they should go.
mc
mc
Eric from Sugarhouse | 8:06 a.m. Aug. 20, 2007
If you are serious about saving parley's as a "nature preserve"
they you need to ignore the dog problem and ban HUMANS from the area
alltogether. A nature preserve is a protected area of importance for wildlife,
flora, fauna or features of geological or other special interest, which is
reserved and managed for conservation and to provide special opportunities for
study or research.
Lets call this place what it really is. Its a park. *some* people want to have their cake and be able to eat it too. They want Dogs out but they want to be able to go down there on foot and do whatever they like. Ive seen a lot of people who only use dogs as the threat to the area, these people are clearly hypocrits. The PARK has many issue, turning a blind eye to all of them but one is not an open minded view of the situation. If you really are concerned about the welfare of the park then remove the people.
e-
Lets call this place what it really is. Its a park. *some* people want to have their cake and be able to eat it too. They want Dogs out but they want to be able to go down there on foot and do whatever they like. Ive seen a lot of people who only use dogs as the threat to the area, these people are clearly hypocrits. The PARK has many issue, turning a blind eye to all of them but one is not an open minded view of the situation. If you really are concerned about the welfare of the park then remove the people.
e-
Mrs M | 8:51 a.m. Aug. 20, 2007
I have lived across the street from Parley's Nature Preserve for over 10
years and I'm a dog owner. Everyone complaining about the park doesn't
see the REAL threat. Kids in the area have destroyed the park more than any dog
could. Dogs don't spray paint the trees and cement. Dogs don't littler
the park with wood, shopping carts, clothing and orange construction barrels.
Dogs don't shoot other dogs with paintball guns. Something does needs to
happen about the on going problems, but it not the dogs. It's the
neighborhood parents that need to control their kids.
Again I have lived across the street from the park for over ten years and I have NEVER had an issue with a dog. Our animals need places to run free and to socialize with other animals.
People say this park is suppose to be a nature preserve, but do you think adding a cement bike path which is going to bring even more people down to the park is going to encourage birds and little animals to live there? How can we blame dogs when you can go to the park today and see PEOPLE tearing up animals natural habitat for a bike path?
Oh, of course the 2 freeways have nothing to do with birds not wanting to nest in the trees.
Can we please open our eyes and stop blaming dogs for the things PEOPLE are destroying??
Again I have lived across the street from the park for over ten years and I have NEVER had an issue with a dog. Our animals need places to run free and to socialize with other animals.
People say this park is suppose to be a nature preserve, but do you think adding a cement bike path which is going to bring even more people down to the park is going to encourage birds and little animals to live there? How can we blame dogs when you can go to the park today and see PEOPLE tearing up animals natural habitat for a bike path?
Oh, of course the 2 freeways have nothing to do with birds not wanting to nest in the trees.
Can we please open our eyes and stop blaming dogs for the things PEOPLE are destroying??
Phil | 9:41 a.m. Aug. 20, 2007
B Rigby....I feel really badly for your dog.
Stan Thomas | 9:50 a.m. Aug. 20, 2007
Safe dogs are well socialized dogs. Dangerous dogs are dogs that are kept
constantly chained, in back yards, and always on leash. Areas such as the Tanner
off leash dog park are essential not only for exercise but for the proper
socialization of dogs as well as their owners.
Complaints that the park is over-utilized and that pet owners ignore leash laws are undeniable proof that more areas like Tanner Park are needed. Creating more opportunities for dogs, their owners, and the general public to socialize, off leash, is the obvious path forward. There is no reason that we cannot ensure and healthy and safe future for people, animals, and the environment.
Complaints that the park is over-utilized and that pet owners ignore leash laws are undeniable proof that more areas like Tanner Park are needed. Creating more opportunities for dogs, their owners, and the general public to socialize, off leash, is the obvious path forward. There is no reason that we cannot ensure and healthy and safe future for people, animals, and the environment.
chuck roast | 9:57 a.m. Aug. 20, 2007
Salt and the other "friends of the earth" would do
well to put their lawsuit money into hiring good
consulting for effective management of the few open
spaces left in this valley, including The Gully.
Otherwise they are likely to be suing
the Daybreak project, Draper, the foothill builders,
the Wasatch Regional Transportation group, and a
whole lot more to stop the expected 400,000 new
people from taking up residence by 2010.
The key to the growth in our future is to create cooperative communities who can assume part of the
responsibility with a sense of ownership and accountability for the space they *will* occupy.
FIDOS folks are such a community.
well to put their lawsuit money into hiring good
consulting for effective management of the few open
spaces left in this valley, including The Gully.
Otherwise they are likely to be suing
the Daybreak project, Draper, the foothill builders,
the Wasatch Regional Transportation group, and a
whole lot more to stop the expected 400,000 new
people from taking up residence by 2010.
The key to the growth in our future is to create cooperative communities who can assume part of the
responsibility with a sense of ownership and accountability for the space they *will* occupy.
FIDOS folks are such a community.
Linda & Madeleine | 10:09 a.m. Aug. 20, 2007
My daughter and I are not dog owners but we strongly support Parley's as an
off-leash park. What we find most compelling are the following:
When it came time for the City Council to vote on the issue 98% of the people filling the seats of the council room (and crowded out into the hallway) were supporters of the park as an off-leash area. At one point we were asked to stand and almost everyone in the hearing room stood. Where were the the opponents? Why weren't they taking the time at the end of a work day to make the effort to speak up, bring facts, and their kids to make a difference?
Other ways we have seen the dog owners go the extra mile and really try to care for the park (as apparently it had never been cared for before) is to volunteer their time to pick up trash, pull invasive weeds, pick up any poop/poop bags left by others, and even water an ailing tree. The dog walkers really care about that park and show themselves as a real community of people who care. My eight-year-old daughter has been inspired enough by the efforts of these people that last week she used a grocery bag to offer to carry out about 20 poop bags for other dog owners (some are left on the ground for their return walk out of the park). We have also noticed that most of the people in the park are regulars (and we, without a dog) have become one of them. My daughter is learning so much about responsibility and community from these users of the park.
Also, wildlife seems to be thriving. On one evening we say an adult fox. A few nights later a fox cub.
When it came time for the City Council to vote on the issue 98% of the people filling the seats of the council room (and crowded out into the hallway) were supporters of the park as an off-leash area. At one point we were asked to stand and almost everyone in the hearing room stood. Where were the the opponents? Why weren't they taking the time at the end of a work day to make the effort to speak up, bring facts, and their kids to make a difference?
Other ways we have seen the dog owners go the extra mile and really try to care for the park (as apparently it had never been cared for before) is to volunteer their time to pick up trash, pull invasive weeds, pick up any poop/poop bags left by others, and even water an ailing tree. The dog walkers really care about that park and show themselves as a real community of people who care. My eight-year-old daughter has been inspired enough by the efforts of these people that last week she used a grocery bag to offer to carry out about 20 poop bags for other dog owners (some are left on the ground for their return walk out of the park). We have also noticed that most of the people in the park are regulars (and we, without a dog) have become one of them. My daughter is learning so much about responsibility and community from these users of the park.
Also, wildlife seems to be thriving. On one evening we say an adult fox. A few nights later a fox cub.
stephen and oh yes shaggs | 10:12 a.m. Aug. 20, 2007
empathy, ah thank you. We can find away to mother earth for all. millcreak
canyon odd or even baby . Im proud to be odd. oh, I have heard a rumor about dog
lake no longer being a lake for dogs?? hmm
Please someone anyone rename it. Im feeling confused.
Please someone anyone rename it. Im feeling confused.
Butcherslc | 10:59 a.m. Aug. 20, 2007
Please show where having more off leashed dogs increases bits or injury for
people. Once again many critics of off-leash Park seem to be thinking with no
sporting evidence the more off-leash dogs means more bites. NYC has seen the
opposite of your thinking. Here some statistics to validate my point.
Annual Reported NYC Dog Bites Before Park Off-leash Hours (1960s): Over 40,000. (source: NYC Dept of Health)
Annual Reported NYC Dog Bites in 2005: 3,956, with 86 (2.2%) occurring in the 1,700+ NYC parks. (source: NYC Dept of Health)
Number of dogs in NYC: Over 1.4 million
Seems to me that off-leash parks reduce the number of people getting bitten by dogs. Of the 3,956 that were reported bitten only 86 happen in 1700+ parks. Sound like your public safety arguments does not hold any water. Research of different areas says what this data does that you are more likely to get bitten outside of a park instead of in one. So, far as there has not been one reported bite in Parley's historic nature park.
Science and society recently have recognized that dogs are highly social animals and that most dogs, especially those that live in a congested city environment, require at least a few hours of off-leash time each week. http://www.nycoffleash.com/html/files/Summary%20of%20selected%20dog%20off-leash%20studies.pdf
Also people in NY tried to use the courts in a similar fashion as Jeff is planning in above article and they lost.
Annual Reported NYC Dog Bites Before Park Off-leash Hours (1960s): Over 40,000. (source: NYC Dept of Health)
Annual Reported NYC Dog Bites in 2005: 3,956, with 86 (2.2%) occurring in the 1,700+ NYC parks. (source: NYC Dept of Health)
Number of dogs in NYC: Over 1.4 million
Seems to me that off-leash parks reduce the number of people getting bitten by dogs. Of the 3,956 that were reported bitten only 86 happen in 1700+ parks. Sound like your public safety arguments does not hold any water. Research of different areas says what this data does that you are more likely to get bitten outside of a park instead of in one. So, far as there has not been one reported bite in Parley's historic nature park.
Science and society recently have recognized that dogs are highly social animals and that most dogs, especially those that live in a congested city environment, require at least a few hours of off-leash time each week. http://www.nycoffleash.com/html/files/Summary%20of%20selected%20dog%20off-leash%20studies.pdf
Also people in NY tried to use the courts in a similar fashion as Jeff is planning in above article and they lost.
Kate | 8:15 p.m. Aug. 20, 2007
I take my dog to parley's everyday. It's not like other dog parks
where I stand around watching my dog run in little circles. At Parley's, I
get to hike with my dog. If there are aggressive dogs, we have plenty of room to
go separate ways.
I do think dog owners and others need some education. It's frustrating when I see other dog owners not paying attention while their dogs pooh, jump on people, or get aggressive with other dogs. I do what I can to be considerate of others, and they give dog owners a bad name.
Thanks.
I do think dog owners and others need some education. It's frustrating when I see other dog owners not paying attention while their dogs pooh, jump on people, or get aggressive with other dogs. I do what I can to be considerate of others, and they give dog owners a bad name.
Thanks.
Anna & dogs | 1:21 p.m. Aug. 21, 2007
I enjoy taking my dogs to Parley's and am/try to be a responsible dog
owner. I enjoy going for the hike and having my dogs off-leash so they can
socialize with other dogs. We make it a point to go there every weekend.
Shiba Fan | 6:55 p.m. Aug. 25, 2007
My wife and I have walked our dogs in "The Gulley" for over 10 years.
Never have I seen any activity taken to clean/maintain/preserve the park other
than at the urging of (or by the activity of) the dog walking public. I have
seen (and helped) pull out car parts, industrial waste, more beer and spray cans
than I care to think about, and as noted above, much "trash" left
behind by those using the park for other forms of recreation. I have heard the
complaints of the "Salt-ines" change repeatedly as they find one or
another of their specious arguments refuted. (Example: Bird life is actually
*enhanced* by the canine presence, as it helps deter the feral cat population
from settling in. Example: repeated testing by independent organizations have
shown that the fecal count in Parley's creek is not substantially different
from any of the other "dog-free" creeks in the Wasatch Front. Example:
Neither Salt Lake City nor Salt Lake County police have noted any significant
dog bite incidents, and have noticed a *decrease* in the number of
assault/public intoxication calls to the park area).
No, the patrons of the park are not all perfect, and yes, it would be nice if everyone picked up after themselves and their dogs. But the vast majority do, and also help clean up after the others. This isn't an ecological Disneyland, with a full time staff of "minders". It was never intended to be. The single biggest problem with the park is its uniqueness, which leads to overuse. The solution is not to close the park, but to create more off-lead parks.
No, the patrons of the park are not all perfect, and yes, it would be nice if everyone picked up after themselves and their dogs. But the vast majority do, and also help clean up after the others. This isn't an ecological Disneyland, with a full time staff of "minders". It was never intended to be. The single biggest problem with the park is its uniqueness, which leads to overuse. The solution is not to close the park, but to create more off-lead parks.
Shiba Fan | 10:01 p.m. Aug. 25, 2007
My wife and I have walked our dogs in "The Gulley" for over 10 years.
Never have I seen any activity taken to clean/maintain/preserve the park other
than at the urging of (or by the activity of) the dog walking public. I have
seen (and helped) pull out car parts, industrial waste, more beer and spray cans
than I care to think about, and as noted above, much "trash" left
behind by those using the park for other forms of recreation. I have heard the
complaints of the "Salt-ines" change repeatedly as they find one or
another of their specious arguments refuted. (Example: Bird life is actually
*enhanced* by the canine presence, as it helps deter the feral cat population
from settling in. Example: repeated testing by independent organizations have
shown that the fecal count in Parley's creek is not substantially different
from any of the other "dog-free" creeks in the Wasatch Front. Example:
Neither Salt Lake City nor Salt Lake County police have noted any significant
dog bite incidents, and have noticed a *decrease* in the number of
assault/public intoxication calls to the park area).
No, the patrons of the park are not all perfect, and yes, it would be nice if everyone picked up after themselves and their dogs. But the vast majority do, and also help clean up after the others. This isn't an ecological Disneyland, with a full time staff of "minders". It was never intended to be. The single biggest problem with the park is its uniqueness, which leads to overuse. The solution is not to close the park, but to create more off-lead parks.
No, the patrons of the park are not all perfect, and yes, it would be nice if everyone picked up after themselves and their dogs. But the vast majority do, and also help clean up after the others. This isn't an ecological Disneyland, with a full time staff of "minders". It was never intended to be. The single biggest problem with the park is its uniqueness, which leads to overuse. The solution is not to close the park, but to create more off-lead parks.
Lewis E. Galway | 11:07 a.m. Aug. 26, 2007
I am glad to see that the park is now dog OK. It is better to make this legal,
and give it some control. As a dog-walker in Parleys, I have hauled out buckets
of poop in the past, as many as three a day. However, since the FIDOS group has
"taken steps," the poop problem is greatly increased as owners take
responsibility for their own dogs. I think that some kind of enforcement of
owners picking up after themselves, as there are a few that make it bad for the
rest. As far as nature goes, I agree, the original owners left it for that
purpose. I am saddened that we, as humans, have to fill the gap that nature
used to take, even our homes, cars, etc. However, we are a city, and we need
recreation areas for our city dwellers/citizens. Hopefully, we can learn a lot
about how to multi-use land, as with Millcreek. also agree about the wear and
tear, the kids with the bikes have dug up and tore up a large area south of the
stream, which could cause (and probably does) major erosion problems. Just my
thoughts, for what they are worth. I also think that more off-lead parks,
including along the Jordan river, there are many places that are
"wild" that could be path-ed and utilized. Of course, there will be
fights and contention about those areas also. Some of that land should be
bought up for future use by both dog users and non dog-users.
Margie | 4:02 p.m. Sept. 10, 2007
I agree with many of the comments here regarding all of the grafitti and trash
left by humans. I have a dog and before I found Parleys, I had no where else to
go.. My dog needs to run and socialize and be out without a leash. I have met
many people in the park and it's a great place for people and dogs. The
FIDOS group is always out cleaning up, fixing up and making the gully a great
place to go. People have everywhere else to walk around and hike and we have
Parleys and Mill Creek on odd days. That's it! I also agree, I have never
seen a duck at Parleys. I see lots of other types of birds though. Give Parley
to people and their dogs.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- NFL: Week 12 recap 12:50 a.m.
- '12 Days' bill would top $87K 12:35 a.m.
- Study finds autism therapy works 12:35 a.m.
- Boy shot following traffic stop 12:35 a.m.
- Sports on the air 12:24 a.m.
- Herbert builds his team of rivals 12:21 a.m.
- Corroon a step closer to governor 12:21 a.m.
- Monday on TV 12:18 a.m.
- Editorial: East, West and religion 12:17 a.m.
- A deficit commission? 12:17 a.m.
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- BYU is champion of the state
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
- Credit Coug defense for win
- Marriage definitions vary widely
- Field goals, penalties doomed Utes
- Cougar defense rose to occasion
- Banged up Jazz get best of Blazers
- Jones' joy for life remembered
- Fantasy is reality for BYU professor
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
869 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime473
- Max Hall issues apology145
- BYU is champion of the state137
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies117
- Cave to be sealed with body inside116
- Rivalry Week is highly profane90
- Hall's legacy measured today79
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal68
- Utes fall to Seattle U. at home65
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
I find it interesting that many of the same people who say that we can't...
None of these teams is going to be easy. They all have fine football...
Max, no apology was necessary, but the apology was polically correct. If...
Very good piece of writing, Amy. You summarized what many of us have been...
How is a top 25 finish make Utah a top twenty team? I think what the poster...
90% of the BYU & Utah fans have class, and Hall knows it. If you don't...
This might be my favorite article I've ever read from the Deseret News. Kudos.
Thank you for not giving up and don't give up now brother and sister...
Dr. Lois Lee's work with children who are victims of child sexual...
Look at the preview for Pixar's "Up". The whole move is summarized in...
Advertisements
Millcreek canyon is just one example of the good and bad of off-leash dog policies. Although it is wonderful to be able to take your dog into the canyons, (I am a dog owner myself)there are many people who are very inconsiderate. Dog dodo is not pleasant for anyone to step in, nor is meeting a large dog face to face with no owner in sight.
I am not a member of the Sierra Club or any other environmental group, but I too am concerned with pristine forest areas being overrun with dogs and what comes with it.
Also, it will only be a matter of time before a large "family dog" comes in contact with an unsuspecting individual, and tragedy will strike.
(In our own neighborhood last year, two pitbulls were allowed off leash in the neighborhood. They attacked some small children. Both dogs were put down after the incident.
My whole point is this. Dogs should never be off leash. If you like to take your dog into a wilderness area, count your blessings they are allowed in the area at all. If you can't stand restraining your dog leave him/her at home.