Questions refuge's logic
Thursday, July 14, 2005
To the editor:
Your front page article on Great Meadows (July 7) tells a very different story from my own experience there. Refuge management sound like they are justifying the banning of dogs because dogs were causing irreparable damage to the wildlife and only 130 out of 2,000 public comments opposed the plan to ban dogs.
I guess that 1,870 people who didn't comment on the dogs were also in favor of killing the ducks and deer - but at least the wildlife won't be "vulnerable to predators or starvation" as officials fear.
A short time before the ban on dogs went into effect on July 1, the Refuge posted notices and said they hoped it would not "be an inconvenience for anyone." I have walked in Great Meadows with my dog practically every day for 14 years. Usually there is no one else there and the beauty and solitude help restore my soul. Inconvenience? A part of my daily life that I treasure has been taken away. It is my backyard and I loved being there.
Cameras are now installed "to know how many people use the impoundment and what the uses are." Too bad they didn't think of that a few years ago; I'm sure they would see it is the neighbors walking our dogs and jogging and enjoying the beauty of Great Meadows. But the cameras also make me feel this is all a part of the Brave New World, a world where the refuge management find it logical for the ducks and deer to be killed and not for George - on his leash - and me to walk there.
Mark Alston-Follansbee
Bedford Street | |
|
