Barking up a hypocritical tree?
I read “Dog owners busted” in the Sept. 11, Index-Tribune, and it sounded like an opinion piece rather than an objective journalistic story.
This is what Sonoma’s fine (and I say this sincerely) police are going to focus on? Good to know that my tax dollars are going to important things such as “aggressively enforcing” the ban on dogs (in the Plaza).
The same argument presented for dogs not being allowed in the Plaza could be the same reasoning for banning alcohol in the Plaza: Children should not be put at risk by being subjected to “buzzed” or inebriated people in such a popular public space.
Yet a convenient compromise is made where this is concerned. Sonoma is, after all (and in my opinion), the best town in Wine Country, and the Plaza makes a lively center for celebrations. As such, the rationale seems to be that “buzzed” or drunk people comprise only a rare batch of bad apples – certainly not enough to ban alcohol – and “aggressively enforce” it. Just as most people who drink alcohol in the Plaza are responsible, most dog owners are responsible. Where’s the compromise for them?
I certainly would not promote off-leash use for the Plaza (that is unreasonable and does pose a larger risk, in my opinion). But I think there’s absolutely room for compromise on the Plaza, wherein there could be a designated dog-friendly (on-a-leash) area, at least given a trial-run for a few months.
Sonoma is among the most dog-intolerant towns in California, where the only place they can be off a leash is a dog-park smaller than many backyards.
I sincerely hope we see Sonoma get more open-minded and friendly towards dogs. I hope this for the sake of such wonderful nonprofit organizations as Pets Lifeline. The incentives continue to deplete for people to adopt dogs when they live in a town so averse to them.