Friday, June 13, 2008


BECAUSE THEY CAN: It sounds like the dog-people carried the dog-day at the dog-path meeting Wednesday according to Nathan Eagle’s account in today’s local paper as well as yesterday’s .new blog entry at Councilman Mel Rapozo’s blog.

Mel’s tome drew more commentary doggerel from those who doggedly persist in thinking “dogs are people too” replete with the god-given constitutional right to “go” wherever they want.,

Mel did not however, despite two promises, clear up that pesky detail that makes the farce all the more farcical- whether the bike path actually is a park at this point in time where dogs would be banned by ordinance

But the newspaper story seemingly confirms- through lack of confirmation, as things usually get authenticated in Kaua`i government circles- what we’ve been saying to no avail- that the path has never legally been designated a county park and therefore dog walking is legal now.

We asked Eagle for a clarification a month ago after he wrote that the path was “considered a linear park” without attribution.

Today Eagle reports that, like Rapozo apparently, he still can’t get an answer out of the Parks And Recreation Department head Bernard Carvalho as to when and how the path magically became a county park without going through any process at all, saying:

Under the county Parks and Recreation Department’s management, the path is a linear park and as such falls under a county ordinance banning animals without permits.

Parks and Recreation Director Bernard Carvalho did not return calls seeking a more detailed explanation as to why the path falls under the park classification.

After a verbal warning process ended in March, the Kaua‘i Police Department started issuing citations to owners walking their dogs on the multi-use path.

We haven’t seen the testimony of the 50 some-odd people who testified at the hearing yet but from Rapozo’s Eagle’s and others’ descriptions it was a banding together of a bunch of dog-loving nut-cases who want to their habit of owning their precious little dirt-collectors shoved down our collective throats.

Many even claim they felt threatened after showing up to say “no” to having to deal with the mess and abuse of dog-lovers who are blind to the problems their pets perpetrate - so left without testifying.

It’s bad enough these days seeing these poor beasts chained up in little yards or in cages, yearning to run around more than an hour a day and being fed moist “animal by-products” if they’re lucky and essentially bread and water if they’re not. Even the stuff we say we wouldn’t feed to a dog is better than what most get... and that’s with the “responsible” owners.

But now everyone on Kaua`i must put up with the conditions created by people who, instead of taking their dogs to areas where people don’t congregate which is most likely what their dog would want, have to combine their own recreational activities with those of their pets.

Don’t have the time to do both? Then don’t have a dog. Life is full of choices.

This isn’t a rights issue. One person’s right to swing their fist ends at another’s jaw. If anyone has a right here it’s the right to walk without being molested by your dog.

And leashes don’t help. Are dog walkers on the path going to stay seven feet away from everyone else if they have a six foot leash? No, they’re going to ignore people who might not appreciate their wet muddy dog rubbing up against them.

There are plenty of dog owners who would complain bitterly if someone smoked a cigarette around them but have no compunction about exposing us to their smelly, filthy, disgusting habit of cohabitating with wolves.

The worst is Becky Rhodes the head of the Human Society. Her inane statements like

“This is a really important time for Kaua‘i.(and) (t)o be known as a dog-hating visitor attraction is not what we want to be known for”

are baffling enough if they weren’t a violation of the prohibitions against non-profits- especially those that operate through taxpayer subsidies- from lobbying for legislation.

It’s pretty baffling how that would happen anyway since tourists don’t bring their dogs and if anything would probably appreciate not having to step in anything or be attacked by dogs, whether leashed or not.

It’s one thing to advocate for the safety and good treatment of pets. It’s another to insist that we all be forced to deal with your pet If anything Rhodes should be saying that responsible pet ownership includes the rights of people who don’t like your pet, which is traditionally the position taken by responsible authorities.

The dog path lobby would have us believe that everyone loves dogs, mom and apple pie in that order and that “all local people have dogs” and that it’s only a bunch of malahini mainlanders trying to stop us from “living our island lifestyle” who are opposed to having dogs run roughshod over humans out for a walk in the park.

But the “local tradition” is to take care of your animals so they doesn’t bother everyone else. We saw enough of roving packs terrorizing neighborhoods as happened way too often 30 years ago as populations moved into residential rather than true rural areas.

Having a dog around is not only not a right but it is a privilege. And it’s one that is abused by those who bring their dogs to areas where people congregate.

According to the article “Veterinarians and community members said it would be a ‘huge disservice’ to not give residents ‘the freedoms that everyone else seems to have.’”

The freedom that everyone else has? What is this now a constitutional right to have your beast slobber all over our faces and terrorize our kids, who incidentally do have the rights you wish your dogs had but doesn’t..

If you want to treat your beast like your kid be our guest. There’s plenty of coo-coo people out there and you have a right to be one of them. But just because you like dog spit on your face doesn’t give you any “rights” to have it lick even our hands- hey we eat with those things- while you stand there saying “isn’t that cute- he likes you”.

Dogs have their place. They can be wonderful companions. But they are a huge responsibility. And their “place” isn’t among those that don’t want to be around them.. A six foot leash doesn’t mean people have to stay 12 feet away from you, it means the ones holding the leash have to control their dogs and keep them away from people without their permission.


Anonymous said...

I'm not sure you're aging well.

Anonymous said...


Katy said...

Cat people like me appreciate it Andy.

Anonymous said...

Andy is a cat person. That explains a lot.

Anonymous said...

This phrase "shoving it down our throats" is so 2007. Do we really need to read this cliche any more?

You overlook the fact that the dog walking on those bluffs (far far from you) is not a new right under request.
Not being able to is a takeaway from what had been done for decades.

Anonymous said...

The community is ruffly 75-80% in favor of allowing leashed dogs on the multi-use trail. Even on Opozo's push poll it ran 75-25 against him.

Dogs rule. Stinky old cheapskate geezers drool.

It's pretty easy to keep away from someone with a dog on a 6 foot lead. Any decent owner will pay attention and keep their mutt off of others. Those that don't won't be bothered by any rules not matter how many you make.

Mel should be ashamed that he sat there surfing the net instead of giving the testimony any attention. His mind is clearly made up and he should have just stayed home and faked being ill. Of course he'd have missed his weekly brown nosing from the nit picker in chief.

Anonymous said...

"There are plenty of dog owners who would complain bitterly if someone smoked a cigarette around them but have no compunction about exposing us to their smelly, filthy, disgusting habit of cohabitating with wolves."

For someone with personal hygiene issues you sure do throw a lot of rocks.

Are you equating being near a dog poses the same health risks as breathing a carcinogen (cigarette smoke). Can you really be that hyperbolic and be sane?

Virtually every speaker made it clear they thought letting dogs crap randomly was unacceptable. So this suggestion:

replete with the god-given constitutional right to “go” wherever they want

is just classic Parxist BS.

Andy Parx said...

Couple of things. For the small handful of you with acres of land and fenced yards rather than chains and kennels- great. Good for you. But 99% of the dogs I see don’t get that.

And as for taking your dogs out for a run or even walk there are thousands of acres of places up in the mountains and less used shoreline areas where your dog can run free or on a long leash. Why do you need to take your dog where people- especially kids who might be deathly afraid of dogs and are less likely to know how to deal with them without getting attacked- congregate in great numbers may not appreciate your dog’s wonderful presence? I don’t dislike dogs but I acknowledge they are dirty, smelly and can be very dangerous, even your precious little Fido... and they take even more care and can be a greater responsibility than having a kid.

There are lots of thing we used to be able to do around here that we can’t anymore. It’s a bad situation that’s getting worse. But what gets me is that the biggest thing people get upset about in this area and flock to council meetings for is their dogs. where were you when people were warning about what would happen when this bike path went in?

Why do you have to push your dogs on those who don’t appreciate your precious little family member being around and have a right to not be harassed by them. As I said, as far as rights your right to swing your fist ends at my jaw. That is the ONLY issue here.

Anonymous said...

That's fine. When a dog actually harrasses you then you have a complaint. But your right to swing your fist stops at the dog owner's nose as well. Just because you don't want the smelly things in your presence doesn't mean you get your way. People have a right to have dogs on leashes. You have a right to not be harrassed and to not have to trip around rudely unpicked up doggy doo.

Anonymous said...

This "fear of dogs" issue is a phony one. The product of a sheer lack of good reasons to ban people and/or animals. It was invented yesterday and the losers in this fray will now do their level best to instill this fear in their own kids so they can "I told ya so" the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Andy Parx V. Strawman

In the first round Strawman is ahead on points. Evidently just lying there is more effective than making crap up damaging what little cred you may have.

1) What % of the population is so deathly afraid of dogs they'll quiver in their homes instead of just stepping off the path to keep their distance?

If you are going to keep dragging in enforcement, how do you plan to stop people from just ignoring the ban? Will it cost more to enforce no dogs vs dogs on leash? Will Mickens no longer have camera time due to funding shortages for electricity?

2) Opposition to dogs on the path to stab at facility you opposed from day one is low. Gripping that people don't share your concerns is also lame. Perhaps if you didn't bitch about everything, people might take you seriously when you did complain. You've cried wolf for decades mostly for nothing. We're still waiting for our great big checks from suing Citizens Energy.

3) If the fears/objections of a small number are to rule, can I demand dirty, smelly loud out of control children be banned from public places? I'll trade you no dogs for no kids.

I also thought you were championing "transportation only" as one of you lame ass reasons or have you given up on that one? How can all these kids be compatible with a transportation facility?

4) Your analogy is false. I have a right to have my hand form a fist. You have no issue unless I am threatening you or actually strike you. If a dog on a leash is within your vision is that more than you can bear? If people violate your space, then complain. But flapping around like a ninny re a problem that is just speculative is pathetic.

Since all your time is spent in the council chamber anyway, why do you care what people do or don't do on the Bike/Pedestrian path? Or is this just you and the nit pickers having no other windmill to tilt at for now?

Andy Parx said...

Yes- there shouldn’t be anything but bikes on the bike path. but there are. I have failed. But just like I accept reality there I accept the reality that 99% of dog owners are not responsible- heck, when I was raising kids I had a dog and wasn’t fully responsible 100% of the time- it’s virtually impossible. And I got sick of dealing with freaked out kids and even a bite or two because people couldn’t control their animals. And many times they were on leases. It matter more if the dog is 100% obedient and under the control of the owner than if it is on a leash. And that happens 1% of the time, if that.

My question is why people have to bring their dog to a densely populated recreational area- and a narrow path that is not even as wide as the leashes reach- rather than taking tem to where it’s possible to avoid them.

And as far as “rights” dogs do not have rights nor do they get them through some kind of transference from dog owners. There is no right to own a dog- there is a privilege that comes with responsibilities.

Anonymous said...

Families on the path - yes! Bicycles on the path - Yes! Roller bladers and strollers - yes!
Dogs NO
People on the path, not dogs!

Anonymous said...

if you think the path is densely populated you obviously haven't been on the path.

Anonymous said...

advise to Mia:
Get ready to lose.

Joan Conrow said...

Dogs are dirty and smelly? Hey, I object to that one!
You may not want us on the Path, but no need hit below the collar.

--- Koko

Anonymous said...

You lost on the "transportation only" because from day 1 it was a multi user path.

Trying to lever the falsehood into a reason to oppose it in its entirety was doomed to failure as there are many of us that can read and don't rely on propaganda artists with their hair on fire for accurate info.

People have rights --agreed. One of the requests of the majority is that they be able to take their dogs on a path designed to get people out and exercising. In this case the majority rules as the rights of the minority are not interfered with. They can still use the path. They just have to share.

Andy Parx said...

Awwww- I’m sorry Koko- I should have said present company excluded.

Anonymous said...

No one has died from an overdose of doggie doo, but what comes out in a baby diaper left on the beach can.
Let's ban babies too! Baby butts stink and soil our beaches.

Let's ban smokers while your at it.....their cigarettes are not only an eye sore but temp kids to smoke the butts.

Let's just let the Nazi's run the show.