If your dog were under vocal control and if you were actually exhibiting that control, your dog would not have approached another animal without first receiving permission from the owner that it was, in fact, acceptable for your dog to approach those animals. If THOSE off leash alpacas approached your dog first, well, then maybe that alpaca owner should have his green tag revoked!

I have no answer to the alpaca poop - other than there are probably a smaller concentration of alpacas on the trail in a given week than dogs. And, some of the areas already have seasonal cattle, so maybe it is treated in the same way?

"The suburb outside Tel Aviv asked its dog owners to take their pets to the veterinarian to be swabbed for DNA. From there, the city hopes to build an effective DNA database. As of early December, the DNA bank contained over 100 samples, officials told the New York Times.
To encourage its citizens to participate in the program, the city installed special trashcans in certain areas of the city. Officials then plan to test the poop placed in the cans and, when a specimen matches a dog in the DNA bank, the city will give the dog owner a reward – such as a pet food coupon or a dog toy. "

Positive Reinforcement!

Very good points. I agree - more rangers would probably be helpful. And interesting observation about year's past. However, since we cannot seem to check our own breeding, our numbers are only going to increase, and the concentration of people on the trails as well. For that reason, sadly, we have to be more strict, because the numbers of people, and dogs, on the trail will increase.
You may have a point about the leave the bag v. take the bag and whether it might not result in higher numbers of people just not bagging and picking up their dog's poop at all. Of course, since you are probably correct, it only reinforces my own misanthropy.

I have long said that the cost of getting a green tag should be higher and part of the cost should be put toward a weekly group TEST being run by a trainer whereby every green tag applicant has to PROVE that s/he ALREADY has vocal control of her/his canine. So, these new rules are a step toward that, but do not go far enough. I will remind everyone that green tags - like driving licenses - are PRIVILEGES not RIGHTS. I don't know why some need to be reminded of that, but it appears they do.

I have a dog. I love my dog. My dog is my constant companion on my hiking and backpacking adventures. However, WE ARE THE VISITORS, the "wild" is the home of wilderness and should be allowed to live with less impact. Bad enough that we carve walking (and sometimes driving) trails all through their homes, but then we let Rover loose, unchecked, to chase wildlife, tear up turf, mark everywhere, etc.

Many dogs are nice, and not a problem - that does NOT however, equate to being under voice and sight control. My dog walks leashed. We are approached REGULARLY without being asked, by off leash dogs. A friend once had a friendly dog jump on her, without encouragement, when it was filthy with mud. Too often, I see off leash dogs that are, again, very friendly and sweet, but are out of sight of the owner and the halfhearted calls of the owners (because owners of friendly dogs tend to be more lax about bothering to call them off, I find) are not paid any heed. While these dogs may be friendly - they are certainly NOT under voice and sight control.

It is not an exception to see dogs bounding far off trail in pursuit of "smells" which are probably left by the residents of that area - the wild animals. Considering the concentration of people and animals in these close-to-city wild spaces, we need to be more vigilant, not less, in keeping animals from chasing wildlife and...yes...picking up their fecal material. Not sure how dog poop entered this discussion of the green tag system, but I know it is on people's minds when it comes to dogs. It is not simply the presence of people and dogs in wilderness areas that is a concern - but the concentration of them and the impact that has on the environment as a whole. It is the concentration of people in a given area that makes it so that we have to have certain laws governing noise, traffic, trash, etc. If you want the wild to stay as wild as possible, that means sacrificing Fido, and yourself, being allowed to tramp around uncontrollably.

I wish this were a testing system, rather than a class, whereby only those people who have ALREADY invested time and effort into training their dogs were rewarded with the privilege (yes, it is a privilege to have a green tag - not a right) of having their dogs off trail.

In short - if you and your dog do not exhibit a mastery of "come when called" "heel" "leave it" and, I think, "down stay" - leash your dog and let the wildlife, and other trail users, have some peace. This comes not from, as some have claimed, a dog hater, but a wild-lover who also loves her dog and understands his, and her own, limitations.

Agree - I have long said that the cost of getting a green tag should be higher and part of the cost should be put toward a weekly group test being run by a trainer whereby every green tag applicant has to PROVE that s/he has vocal control of her/his canine.

I have a dog. I disagree that this has to do with other people's fears and more with your fear/dislike of hauling around a container of your own dog's feces while on the trail. Could be worse - if you were hiking in the true desert, you'd be carrying containers of your OWN feces as well as your dog's. Dog poop stinks, but you should still put that bag of dog poop into a compartment of your backpack. If you invest in a dog packpack, then s/he can carry her/his own poop. If you have a problem hauling around your dog's fecal matter, maybe you should not be on the trail. Your dog's feces need to be picked up and removed from the trail upon deposit, and not left for you to "maybe" remember to pick it up on the way out.

Thank you, Rabbi Rose, for your beautiful reminder that we should never use the shield of on-line anonymity as an excuse not to treat each other with at least some measure of respect and decency. I thought your post was really lovely and very well written. Thank you.

Just because someone disagrees with the Rabbi does not mean that s/he has not listened. I actually had a discussion with someone about the calling your Rabbi by his/her first name after reading the article. A real discussion, not a bitch session.
Boulder does, by and large, tend to lean left and condemn any ideas that come from the right and I find it highly annoying when those same lefties trumpet how "open-minded" they are. However, I think that some of these responses have good honest thought behind them.
I appreciate Rabbi Goldfeder taking the time to respond to so many of the comments. Isn't debate supposed to be important in Jewish learning?
I tend to travel along the bumpy middle road, but I still think that there is great value in ministering to the world community. Our individual actions can have a ripple effect, especially when taken cumulatively.

Rabbi, with respect, building wells to bring people water seems very appropriate in terms of how tikkun olam has been explained to me.

We have over 7billion people on this planet, many of us are non-Jews. Are you suggesting that only Jews should receive your ministrations? I don't know that supporting other worthy causes is keeping Boulderites from helping their sick and elderly. If it is, perhaps Haver needs to hold a meeting to write some fire and brimstone encouraging congregants to contribute and volunteer to JFS.

Yes, money is limited and I can see your interest, as the head of a synagogue, to see more of your congregant's money being used for Jewish-specific charities, including your shul, JFS, etc. But why can't a little percentage of that money also be used to build wells and promote a healthy planet through climate change prevention? If the planet gets trashed, we'll all, Jews and non-Jews, be in hot water!

I also wanted to address your allusions to connection/unity/the bigger picture. Are we not all connected within that bigger picture? What you do or fail to do for a non-Jew, has an effect on a chain of people around that non-Jew that may come back to you, or someone you love, who is a Jew. Therefore, engaging in behaviors and promoting causes that save the environment, protect species of animals and help non-Jews, you are helping the wider world-community, of which all Jews are a part.

I appreciate your concerns and I'm sure they come from a good place, but I think the way they are presented opens a dark, dangerous door. I don't like to think about the obvious flipside to isolationism (Jews should only help Jews), because I think we've already see enough of that in this world.

My apologies if I have offended or misunderstood what you are saying. As tomorrow is Friday, I will wish you a Shabbat Shalom, Rabbi Goldfeder.

Are you not inspired, or is your opinion just colored by your concern for the boy? That is understandable and, of course, your feelings are valid.

This turned to a tragedy for him, but it was because of his own actions. I don't care if she was high, in a negligee and had expressed initial consent toward being intimate: NO MEANS NO! If the parents of the boy failed to give him that basic education or he chose to ignore that fact, then it doesn't really matter what the circumstances were: she said "no" and he forced her. The end. There is no defense, no excuse that can downplay or avoid the truth: she was forced against her will to have sexual relations with her rapist.

She definitely has "guts" to step forward and regardless of the circumstances, it is EXCELLENT to have a young person who has experience sexual assault coming forward and braving the court of public opinion to say, "don't blame the person assaulted, blame the person who assaulted."

I do hope the boy will get more than just incarceration - I hope he gets therapy. Jail these days doesn't care about rehabilitating people, just housing them - and that is a BIG problem because it just winds up in recidivism.

Brava, Anna! Thank you for your courage!