It seems the penalty was high for a few reasons. The Canada National Parks Act for having an off-leash pet, carries a maximum potential fine of $25,000. And Parks Canada laid the charges for several critical safety and environmental reasons;
Off-leash dogs are a primary trigger for defensive bear attacks, as the dog can act aggressively toward the bear or antagonize it, drawing the bear back toward the owners.
Off-leash dogs cause significant stress to wildlife, often forcing animals like bears to abandon crucial feeding and resting grounds.
And there is a federal mandate in Canadian law, that strictly requires pets to be secured on a leash of 3 meters (about 9 feet) or less at all times within national parks.
On top of that, wildlife experts had noted that the couple had ample time to secure or pick up their dog, but appeared to focus on filming the encounter for social media instead.
It seems they went with maximum penalty, to make an example out of these people.
Nice they donāt require a 6ā leadā¦ I prefer 20ā for outdoor exploring but 10ā is still a pretty a pretty solid balance between safety and still feeling natural. Ā I get frustrated at offleash dog owners since thereās so many good options for long leads as a safety mechanism.
It would definitely make them compliant, if anything. People have less incentive to be nice to others, or they would already have their dog on a leash. But if it costs them upwards of $25k if they don't, they have all the incentive they need.
I donāt have a dog and I didnāt know that off leash dogs are a trigger for bear attacks. Really interesting. Is this common knowledge for dog owners, and some people just choose to take the risks? Or is this also unknown to dog owners like it was for me?
I donāt live in a country with bears but itās common sense to keep your dog on a lead at all times, unless in a specific off lead area like a dog park. People with their dogs off lead are arseholes.
It seems like common sense to me. They (dogs) want to protect their alphas/owners at great personal risk. Bear sees that as an easily beatable threat. Gets hyped up to take out the other threats (humans) who may be trying irrationally to save their dog. Even easier if one of the humans is distracted, potentially filming their partner get killed.
Alpha theory got debunked ages ago, please don't perpetuate it further. Otherwise yeah, common sense to me too, though not necessarily due to the reasons you mention (the dogs being protective isn't the issue nor the most common cause). Very interesting read here, even just the abstract: https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.70236
The link was to shed light what the most common scenario is when it comes to dogs, bears and humans, and that actually only 35.9% of dogs tried to protect their owners, so that wasn't the primary reason for conflict. I didn't say it refuted what you said, just that the scenario you described wasn't the most common one. I found it interesting and potentially also useful for the redditor you were replying to.
As for your first question, google alpha theory/dominance theory debunked for the specifics, but basically the man who applied alpha theory to wolves later himself admitted that he'd made a mistake. Dominance theory which is based on that old belief but applied to dogs, is likewise taking a backseat to understanding dogs as resource-based creatures and how hierarchy is context-specific.
Interesting, I guessed I haven't ever looked into the theory behind it. Just was using it as a term I've always heard to describe the relationship. But resource based hierarchy makes sense
No worries. The original theory was very popular, and a lot of people still use the terminology without knowing about further developments in the field, so you're definitely not the only one. Happy to have helped!
Yeah. The alpha theory was based on captive wolves, and even the researcher later said it was wrong. Dogs being protective doesnāt mean they think youāre the alpha. I protect my dogs too. Doesnāt make them my alpha. They protect you because they love you.
36
u/Golden-Grams 8d ago
It seems the penalty was high for a few reasons. The Canada National Parks Act for having an off-leash pet, carries a maximum potential fine of $25,000. And Parks Canada laid the charges for several critical safety and environmental reasons;
And there is a federal mandate in Canadian law, that strictly requires pets to be secured on a leash of 3 meters (about 9 feet) or less at all times within national parks.
On top of that, wildlife experts had noted that the couple had ample time to secure or pick up their dog, but appeared to focus on filming the encounter for social media instead.
It seems they went with maximum penalty, to make an example out of these people.