Chevy Chase dog park excessive barking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d be furious if I purchased a nice home in a quiet neighborhood and then there was a public dog park or kennel positioned adjacent to my property. It’s not really reasonable.

A dog park should be subject to the same laws as the local ordinance where the other people reside. E.g. if a dog can’t bark more than once in each 15 minute interval or whatever without being fined in one of the nearby houses, then that should apply for dog parks too. Unless the parks are far away from residential properties and those types of rules aren’t in effect.

I don’t live in that area, but I live somewhere else without large yards and I can’t have the pets I’d like either, because I just don’t live in a suitable area for it. People need to accept that having a pet is not a right when it infringes on others’ rights, and I think it’s pretty clear that people should be able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home save for things like regular traffic noise.

Reasonable is subjective. And having a dog park is reasonable in my opinion. As it passed unanimously, it seems others felt that way as well. As others pointed out, this is a CITY. You have no "right" to hear only the sounds that you choose to hear, when you want to hear it. Sometimes you will be inconvenienced. It's not harming you. If you don't like it, move farther out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d be furious if I purchased a nice home in a quiet neighborhood and then there was a public dog park or kennel positioned adjacent to my property. It’s not really reasonable.

A dog park should be subject to the same laws as the local ordinance where the other people reside. E.g. if a dog can’t bark more than once in each 15 minute interval or whatever without being fined in one of the nearby houses, then that should apply for dog parks too. Unless the parks are far away from residential properties and those types of rules aren’t in effect.

I don’t live in that area, but I live somewhere else without large yards and I can’t have the pets I’d like either, because I just don’t live in a suitable area for it. People need to accept that having a pet is not a right when it infringes on others’ rights, and I think it’s pretty clear that people should be able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home save for things like regular traffic noise.

Another person who thinks that people with lots of money should be more free from life's annoyances than people without lots of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pulitzer Prize for this reporter!

Maybe as a humor article. So many local stories ignored (graft and incompetence in local government), but they focus on rich people's squabbles.

You must be a ton of fun to be around.

Yes, let's only write slanted political pieces - what's left of the Post could really use more of those, maybe more sap from Petula Dvorak as well

[Anonymous]

Petula steals all her article ideas from DCUM anyway. She should give us all a cut.

[Anonymous]

As long as no one is barking 10pm-7am, I'm cool with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part was the insinuation that the ill-behaved dogs came from DC.

Same. The

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Petula steals all her article ideas from DCUM anyway. She should give us all a cut.

The Washington Post actually employs more than one woman journalist. This particular article was written by a woman journalist at the Washington Post who is not Petula Dvorak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as no one is barking 10pm-7am, I'm cool with it.

Legally, it’s more like 9-7.
I think the dog park should stay, but only if owners behave, pick up poo promptly and supervise their dogs at all times to prevent fighting and other undesirable behaviors.

Truthfully, they should he using zap collars. The new ones are safe and teach dogs not to do things in a humane way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d be furious if I purchased a nice home in a quiet neighborhood and then there was a public dog park or kennel positioned adjacent to my property. It’s not really reasonable.

A dog park should be subject to the same laws as the local ordinance where the other people reside. E.g. if a dog can’t bark more than once in each 15 minute interval or whatever without being fined in one of the nearby houses, then that should apply for dog parks too. Unless the parks are far away from residential properties and those types of rules aren’t in effect.

I don’t live in that area, but I live somewhere else without large yards and I can’t have the pets I’d like either, because I just don’t live in a suitable area for it. People need to accept that having a pet is not a right when it infringes on others’ rights, and I think it’s pretty clear that people should be able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home save for things like regular traffic noise.

Another person who thinks that people with lots of money should be more free from life's annoyances than people without lots of money.

Do you understand the concept that most households in that area are paying a ton more in taxes than many other parts of the surrounding area? And since you don’t think people with money should get any benefit at all, I’m guessing you couldn’t have a problem with them not paying any more, right? And so where do you think that funding shortfall is supposed to come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Petula steals all her article ideas from DCUM anyway. She should give us all a cut.

The Washington Post actually employs more than one woman journalist. This particular article was written by a woman journalist at the Washington Post who is not Petula Dvorak.

Where did pp imply that she thought Petula wrote this particular article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d be furious if I purchased a nice home in a quiet neighborhood and then there was a public dog park or kennel positioned adjacent to my property. It’s not really reasonable.

A dog park should be subject to the same laws as the local ordinance where the other people reside. E.g. if a dog can’t bark more than once in each 15 minute interval or whatever without being fined in one of the nearby houses, then that should apply for dog parks too. Unless the parks are far away from residential properties and those types of rules aren’t in effect.

I don’t live in that area, but I live somewhere else without large yards and I can’t have the pets I’d like either, because I just don’t live in a suitable area for it. People need to accept that having a pet is not a right when it infringes on others’ rights, and I think it’s pretty clear that people should be able to enjoy peace and quiet in their own home save for things like regular traffic noise.

Another person who thinks that people with lots of money should be more free from life's annoyances than people without lots of money.

Do you understand the concept that most households in that area are paying a ton more in taxes than many other parts of the surrounding area? And since you don’t think people with money should get any benefit at all, I’m guessing you couldn’t have a problem with them not paying any more, right? And so where do you think that funding shortfall is supposed to come from?

A lot of people seem to confuse taxes with user fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part was the insinuation that the ill-behaved dogs came from DC.

Lol!

Yes, the part where the woman refers to people with District plates...no offense, she says..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Petula steals all her article ideas from DCUM anyway. She should give us all a cut.

The Washington Post actually employs more than one woman journalist. This particular article was written by a woman journalist at the Washington Post who is not Petula Dvorak.

Where did pp imply that she thought Petula wrote this particular article?

+1 The first post was in reply to (a reply?) to the person who didn't think this article deserved a pulitzer (it does), because it wasn't about suffering. Petula got dragged into this because she also works for the post (& she definitely gets her all her ideas from DCUM).

The author of this article, Jessica Contrera, totally rocked this article. Every line made me laugh and it's possibly the best thing I've read in the Post in a long time. Pulitzer prize worthy and if they don't see that then they don't know good journalism if it hit them over the head.

[Anonymous]

The whitest thing ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Petula steals all her article ideas from DCUM anyway. She should give us all a cut.

The Washington Post actually employs more than one woman journalist. This particular article was written by a woman journalist at the Washington Post who is not Petula Dvorak.

Where did pp imply that she thought Petula wrote this particular article?

I think she implied it when she said “Petula.”