“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
George Orwell
I am embarrassed to admit to having discovered that I am one of those Lower Makefield residents who has been totally oblivious to the plight of as many as ten thousand of the town’s residents. That I could have been so insensitive to the social depravation which has been inflicted upon this minority has caused me great pain and forced me to reexamine my own priorities.
How on earth could I have rationally considered the logic of spending public monies on a new rescue squad facility, the preservation of open space, our public school system or, for that matter, such questionable expenditures as have been proposed for a senior citizen center and a “feel good” teen hangout … when there is before the town a request to fund recreational facility to address the lack of off-leash exercise opportunities for, and social interspecies deprivation of, the town’s canine population. And while they’re at it, in part to avoid any future class action lawsuits, consideration should be given to similar accommodations for the resident felines, which must also number in the thousands, and even the fewer number of horses living among us.
On a more somber note, however, and aside from the philosophical questions concerning the role of government, there are several serious questions which should be asked and answered:
1. Who is going to pay for the land necessary to create this park? Given one acre building lots can range up to $100,000 to $200,000 per acre, divided by an estimated 10,000 resident canines, then it would be reasonable to assume every dog owner should be willing to shell out perhaps $20.00 per mutt. Surely, they would not ask their fellow taxpayers to pony up the funds or that the township should turn over public land not otherwise being currently used or set aside for various recreational or preservation activities.
2. Has any one taken a survey to determine what percentage of the town’s dog owners have any interest in the park … or is this proposal merely the brainchild of a handful of frustrated pet owners? Published reports identify less than a dozen activists who are sponsoring this effort.
3. Can any individual find any correlation between the personal needs of a few people to provide greater freedom of exercise and interaction with other dogs for their pets with any legitimate mandate on our public sector? No one forces anyone to own a dog. I’ll bet every dog owner in town acquired their pet independent of any government coercion. Those who choose to do so, adopt their pet knowing fully that they will have to be kept on a leash when not on their own property.
4. What will the costs of fencing the canine playground total? One must assume that the visitors [four legged and otherwise] will need to be kept within the bounds of the park..
5. Will the area be lighted? I’d think many resident dog owners work all day and will want to be able to take Fido down to the park for an hour or so of socializing with its fellow four-legged friends in the evening.
6. Where will people park? It seems safe to assume that many dog owners will come from all corners of our town, mostly by car … and they’ll need a place to park,
7. Will the canine playground be for the exclusive use of Lower Makefield residents? What type of measures will have to be put in place to keep outsiders, particularly those from the “borough”, out.
8. Will the proposed park be open year-around? If so, the township will invariably be responsible for mowing, plowing, picking up trash and otherwise maintaining the facility … expenses for which will inevitably be pushed off on the taxpayers.
9. Who’ll be responsible for any children who enter the canine preserve? It’s a safe assumption that a great many people who own dogs also have children and that those human offspring will occasionally [or even regularly] be taken along to observe their pets “interactions with other dogs”. Young children could be over-trusting of other dogs and become easy prey for nips and bites as well as being exposed to all sorts of disease stemming from the liquid and solid “leavings” of the town’s four legged population.
10. Who’s going to be responsible if someone’s pet is bitten, or worse eaten, by a larger, meaner animal? Just as people don’t always see eye to eye, Poodles, Setters, Labs, Greyhounds, Boxers, Dalmatians, Dobermans, Pit Bulls and any number of other breeds don’t always get along. Will the town [and by extension, the taxpayers] be liable if Rover mangles Fifis ear?
11. Who is going to be responsible for cleaning up after the dogs? Having owned dogs throughout my youth and that of my children, I recall that most dogs are not well toilet-trained. Therefore, it is safe to assume that each mutt using the proposed facility will regularly adorn the grounds with its waste. Not quickly removed, particularly in hot weather, these “deposits” will create a potential health hazard.
12. What about the ultimate disposal of the dogs’ refuse? There are very specific regulations governing the disposal of human excrement, either through a public sewer or an approved septic system. Once collected, someone will be responsible to pay for the proper disposal of the dogs’ refuse … surely not the taxpayers!
13. Who will control the mating rituals? Certain parent may be very much at ill ease during times when their children are present and their pets are in heat. Silly me, its just sex among people that upsets many people’s ethos.
Whether evaluated based on expense, liability, or justifiable use of the taxpayers’ money, this inane proposal needs a quick and sure death!
If private citizens want to establish a private dog preserve on private lands to which they have appropriate rights, if they are willing to assume the incumbent liabilities, and if they can ensure that the place will not become a health hazard, they should be encouraged to pursue their dream. However, to attempt to con the town to use its police taxing powers to extort funds from the residents for such a frivolous project is at best disingenuous and more likely demonstrates a gross lack of understanding of the nature and role of government in a free society.
Lest we not forget that, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.”
