🚀 go-pugleaf

                                   September 28, 1995
The Editor

Re: Dogs and People in Our Parks

     There is an ancient controversy about the proper use of parks.
Are parks for people, or for wildlife? Since wildlife are never at
the table, and can't vote, humans always "win" this argument (by
default). But aren't urban parks for people? Who defined them as
such? People, of course. So we win. QED.

     Don't forget that we stole all of our park land from wildlife.
We humans get together to decide how we will divide up "our" land.
Wildlife, if they are considered at all, are nearly always just an
afterthought. Give them the crumbs.

     Homeless people were justly driven from Golden Gate Park, but
for the wrong reasons: We should provide them a safe place to live,
but not at the expense of wildlife! No matter how bad off humans
    ______________________________                              
are, wildlife are in a much worse position. We are driving about
100 species per day extinct, worldwide. We have driven numerous
species (locally) extinct in the Bay Area, and hundreds more are
headed that way. Are we going to continue squeezing them until they
have no place to live? Many species can live only in a small
                                             ____           
section of the Bay Area, such as on Mt. Bruno or in other parts of
San Francisco. Are we so selfish that we are going to take every
square inch of the Bay Area for ourselves? At least in our parks,
                                           ______________________
let us keep human access and artifacts to a bare minimum!
_________________________________________________________
Otherwise, the parks will lose the very wildlife (i.e., all
nonhuman, nondomesticated species) that make them attractive to us!

     Dog owners want to let their dogs run free in the Berkeley
Waterfront. Once again, the needs of wildlife are not being
considered. It is unfortunate that dog owners have let the dog
population get so huge that the city cannot possibly accommodate
them. I feel sorry for any dog that is forced to live in a city. It
is bad enough for humans, but worse for dogs. However, this is no
excuse to force the wildlife who have prior claim to this habitat
to give it up for the sake of overfertile humans and dogs.

     The Emeryville Crescent (a so-called "wildlife sanctuary") is,
as I speak, being destroyed (as viable habitat) so that humans can
save a few minutes driving to work (while avoiding the use of feet,
bicycles, buses, trains, and ferries that could get them there in
much more comfort).

     People's Park in Berkeley is misnamed. Its first, principal,
most numerous, and most deserving residents are wildlife. If we are
going to continue having wildlife, they must be given priority. All
                                        ____                       
parks should be Wildlife Parks, where humans are at most
unobtrusive visitors.

                                   Sincerely,                          


                                   Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.