Va. St parks and pet fee

wbwood wrote:

Lantley wrote:
I see the tide has turned. Earlier post that proclaimed dogs do not cost the CG extra money. Have changed to the CG needs to implement more rules with a stricter more frequent enforcement policy.
That all sounds good on paper, however as WRVPO stated he's not running a prison camp. More rules,more enforcement equate to more cost more fees.
Before long he'll have to add per day pet fees to cover the additional cost of pets. ;)

If he's experiencing damage to his property perhaps there should be more patrol. How would he know it was a dog tied up to a tree that caused damage unless he saw a dog tied to the tree. Just as its not fair to charge a person that does not have a dog a fee, it's also not fair for responsible dog owners to have to pay more. Perhaps dog fees should be based on weight and size. Cause a little dog is likely to cause less damage than a big dog.

You are absolutely right. We should patrol more. I keep forgetting this the 21st century. Change has come to America. Don't blame the criminal, blame the victim. Our trees get damaged, it is our fault for not being more vigilant. If you get robbed, you should have been more careful.
FYI, a dog on a chain can girdle a tree in less than 5 minutes. The trees were Quaking Aspens, they are very beautiful trees, but they have soft bark, like many softwood trees. Guess it is also my fault for having the wrong kind of trees. Lantley is absolutely astute on his observation. Sure is funny how the discussion gave up on the idea that dogs don't cost any money, and turned to how it is the park's fault dogs cost money and how if the park would spend even more money, the problems would somehow end.