History Goes to the Dogs

Where the Deer and the Antelope (and Dogs) Play

By Amy Seigel, 1-17-06

Not too long ago, the City of Salt Lake decided to do a very nice thing. They actually listened to the petitions and pleas of a very well organized, socially conscious animal advocacy group called Mill Creek FIDOS (Friends Interested in Dogs and Open Space), and created an official (one-year trial basis only) off-leash park out of an area that had long been a de facto off-leash space—Parley’s Historic Nature Park. Now the words “historic"? and “nature"? should be an immediate tip-off as to what sparked the ensuing controversy over what would otherwise seem a generous and inoffensive act on the part of the City. As the Deseret News reports, several groups, including the rather nebulous Canyon Rim Citizens Association and The Sons of the Utah Pioneers, have raised an uproar over the new fido-friendly regulations. These concerned citizens seem worried that massive numbers of free-running mutts will do irreparable damage to wildlife, native plants, and most importantly, priceless Mormon Pioneer monuments.

I have waited so long to write an article on the situation at Parley’s because, until last week, I had never actually visited the park and had no idea of the type of monuments these citizen groups are so keen on protecting from doggie damage. As it turns out, all I could find when I visited the park, with five of my four-legged hiking clients in tow, were numerous stone markers with little plaques on them scattered around an otherwise wild (yet rather shabby-looking) landscape. And so I have to ask: what exactly are The Sons of Utah Pioneers worried that dogs will do to these monuments? Pee on them? As far as I know, dog pee has little to no effect on stone and will almost certainly be washed away completely by the utterly non-corrosive Salt Lake rain and snow. Furthermore, I would venture to guess that these monuments are more likely to be damaged by humans than any other kind of animals. As far as I know, dogs are still incapable of etching initials or wielding spray paint.

As for the concerns about wildlife and native plants, the Deseret News article makes it clear that there have been no before and after studies done to corroborate claims that large numbers of unleashed dogs will decimate existing populations. But again I have to ask an obvious question: other than perhaps causing some limited erosion—though surely the site’s 88 acres are less at risk than the minuscule swaths of land designated for the City’s other off-leash parks— how much difference does the presence of a leash make with respect to the potential damage a dog can do? Due to watershed issues, dogs are banned from many of the canyons surrounding the Salt Lake Valley—not from being there sans leash, but from traveling in the canyon, period. And although I still can’t quite grasp how dogs will do more to contaminate water than deer, elk, moose and humans, the regulations are at least logical. However, it makes very little sense to restrict them in an area where there is no need to protect the water source, and no obvious animal or plant life that cannot live in perfect harmony with our visiting canine companions.

But I sense that the real problem has more to do with what Preston Hunt, a member of the national board for the Sons of the Utah Pioneers, was quoted as saying in the Deseret News article on Parley’s: “When you go down there, there are dogs all around you, jumping on you."? In reality, I’m almost certain that what’s at issue here is not the nature or the monuments, but certain citizens unwillingness to share their space with animals (the ones you don’t observe through binoculars at a safe distance) or to entertain the idea that dogs living in urban environments have needs that cannot always be fulfilled by walking politely around the block on a leash once or twice a day.

Finally, it seems counterintuitive that these same people would be unhappy with something being made official—if the area had become a de facto off-leash park, then this change should lead to better regulation and perhaps a better informed and more responsible group of users. The day I was there with my herd of mutts, I saw every single person leash their dogs for the walk from the parking lot to the official start of the park, and nearly every dog obey their owners voice commands of “come,"? “heal,"? and “don’t jump on that nice jogger."? Most dogs, especially the ones whose owners understand their needs enough to take them to an off-leash park like Parley’s, are not out to get anyone. And what few people seem to understand is that it is when our high energy companions—your Golden Retriever, your neighbor’s Black Lab, my German Shorthaired Pointer—don’t get the exercise they need that they become the unruly dogs so many people are afraid they’ll have jumping all over them. The bottom line is that I’m sure that with Parley’s, as with so many other things, a preventative approach, a conciliatory attitude, and a willingness to share resources on the part of everyone involved should allow all users—both the two and four-legged kinds—to get the most out of our city’s open space.

Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.