Sasha Hutchison Scholarly Essay Professor Greene November 26, 2011 Dog Waste is Pollution Pollution is on the forefront

of our minds in our current society. People overlook that dog waste is a pollutant. Dog waste can pollute the parks and waterways we play in, and the water we consume. Deteriorating water and soil quality due to dog waste is changing the quality of our water, the attractiveness of our parks, and is ruining the water that other animals live in. In order to keep Austin beautiful, Austin officials can improve the community by creating awareness campaigns educating citizens on how dog waste is pollution and what damage it can ultimately lead to. Having educated citizens working together to understand and find a solution for the dog waste problem is a great starting point in ending the pollution problems caused by this waste. Ecological Engineering is one field of study that deals with engineering a successful cohesion of ecosystems. They could devise ways of controlling the flow of potentially contaminated water around dog parks so that it doesn't get into the water supply. Health Sciences is another field of study that could also help in the fight against dog waste. People of this field would identify to the masses that dog fecal matter is pollution and can cause illness in humans. People who work in the field of urban planning could work with the ecological engineers to start devising ways of keeping all areas of the city as clean as possible from dog waste. They could educate future business owners and sway them to not put dog parks near restaurants or other light commercial spaces where people would be expected to visit often. Psychologists and sociologists could work together to understand the reasons why there are community minded dog owners and more

self serving ones. They could do studies and ask citizens why they feel it is safe and okay to leave their dog's waste behind. From this, they could deduce if it is ignorance that is playing a role in their decision to leave their dogs' waste behind, or if they are just acting in a self-serving way because they do not feel that the should have to clean up after their dog. Dog waste has been a problem in urban communities for years. However, people did not begin acknowledging the need for a law that penalizes individuals who leave their dogs' waste until the 1970's. The first dog waste law was enacted in a small community named Nutley located in New Jersey. Nutley is a town of some 33,000 people and nearly 2,000 dogs. A local Nutley newspaper referred to the new law as the best piece of legislation since the Emancipation Proclamation (Beck 28). This law was not widely recognized until New York City created their own dog waste law shortly after the Nutley law was put into place. In the beginning, the law only cited individuals in order to raise awareness. City and Sanitation Police now also couple enforcement of the law with encouraging people to buy dog licenses by giving owners licensing forms and referring names of owners to the ASPCA (Beck 29). New York City saw a need for this law and made it a state law. The city called this law the Canine Clean-up Law and it is still being enforced today. When something works in New York City, people take note and follow in those foot steps. In 2004, the New York City Parks and Recreation Department did a follow up press release on the Canine Clean-up Law. In the twenty-five years since we passed that law, I have never stepped in it, said Justice Lehner. It has become a law, not only in large cities, but in many smaller cities worldwide. ("New Yorkers are Reminded of Canine Waste Law" 1). This law was the first step New York City took in their plan to make people awareness that dog waste is a pollutant and a problem. The awareness, coupled with the law, educated citizens

about how serious it is to leave dog waste behind. This led to a city that is now more aware and less polluted. There is a dog waste awareness program in the city of Austin and it is called the Scoop the Poop Program. This program was enacted in response to the high bacteria levels in the water sources of Austin. Dog waste is primarily an issue in parks where owners keep their pets off of a leash and let them run free. A notable case of this was at Bull Creek. In 2008 there was a sewage spill at Bull Creek. People who frequented the creek complained of illness. Testing was done and high levels of bacteria were found in the off-leash area of Bull Creek. The health department was summoned in and the park was ultimately shut down. This occurred because the health department deemed the creek and surrounding park unsafe for people to use. They ultimately had to do a soil revitalization project in order to make the bacteria levels found manageable again. The restoration project started by PARD (Parks and Recreation Department) revitalized the soil and surrounding vegetation, and it took a little over a year for the park to reopen after soil conditions were improved enough for human use. The park reopened, but dogs were prohibited from being taken off of a leash. Once the park was reopened, Austin Travis County Health Department in conjunction with Austin Water Utility decided to start educating the public about dog waste. The Scoop the Poop program aims to decrease the amount of waste and to increase awareness in the citizens of Austin. The program is used to maintain the cleanliness of parks as well as private property owned by citizens. The city gives owners free signs to place in their yards to create awareness in neighborhoods. The program has a meager budget to use for their needs. When Scoop the Poop started in 2000 there were no staff handling the matter of dog waste awareness in the city of Austin. In 2001, staff were hired and 25 mutt-mitt stations were put

around town. Now there are 115 stations. Initial funding for the program was $10,000 in 2000, currently the yearly cost for staff, mutt mitts, and signs is $92,000 a year. There is also a law that addresses the issue of punishment for people who leave dog waste behind. City code 3-4-6 defecation by a dog or cat, states an owner or handler shall promptly remove and sanitarily dispose of feces left on public or private property by a dog or cat being handled by the person, other than property owned by the owner or handler of the dog or cat. Violation is a class C misdemeanor with a fine up to $500. This law is new and therefore not as enforced as the Canine Clean-up Law in New York City. Given time though, the law may be better enforced and Austin will start to reclaim parks from dog waste. Not picking up your dogs waste is against the law. Most people will choose not to run red lights or commit other crimes, but why do they commit this crime? Dog owners can either choose to follow the law or not follow the law. In the study, Why Do Some Owners Allow Their Dogs to Foul the Pavement? The Social Psychology of a Minor Rule Infraction, conducted in the United Kingdom by Webley and Siviter, these two psychologists wanted to know why people who own dogs allow them to foul the pavement, even though it is against the law. Individuals may be better off if they break the rules... but the whole system would break down if it was abused by all (Webley and Siviter 1372). All people within a community share their environment. If all people decided to let their dogs foul the parks and streams we all use, then it would destroy the system for all who use it. The authors observed people whose dogs fouled a particular park and subsequently asked them a few questions about being a dog owner and their perceptions of picking up after dogs. Prior to their experiment the authors hypothesized that the more community-minded the individual was, the less likely they would exhibit selfserving behavior and would pick up after their dogs (Webley and Siviter 1372). They observed

that most dog owners picked up after their dogs. The ones that did not were uneducated about the impact that their dogs waste had on the environment. The irresponsible owners were more likely to agree that dog excrement was natural waste and biodegradable (Webley and Siviter 1379). The authors believe that educating people is the best solution to the dog waste problem in the United Kingdom. Pressing education about dog waste as pollution to the uneducated self-serving citizens is the first step in correcting the dog fouling problem. Education would increase the amount of awareness in these people about their community, and would in turn make them more community-minded individuals.. Getting across the message that most dog owners already clean up after their dogs may be effective in changing the behavior of the minority (Webley and Siviter 1379). If people followed the laws and adopted the tradition of cleaning up after dogs, dogs and people would equally be exposed to less parasitic creatures in their environment. Dog waste is pollution and can cause many illnesses. In 1998, it was estimated that 2.2 million deaths were associated with diarrhea each year, a good percentage of them due to fecal pollution of water, with the vast majority of victims being children in poor countries (Domingo and Ashbolt 1). Dog waste contains many elements which make it toxic to our environment. All dogs harbor so-called coliform bacteria, which live in the gut. The group includes E. coli, a bacterium that can cause disease, and fecal coliform bacteria, which spread through feces. Dogs also carry salmonella and giardia (Watson 1). It would not matter if the waste of one dog was being left behind, but the combined waste of all dogs makes it unmanageable and toxic to the environment. Four in 10 U.S. households include at least one dog... Americans owned 54.6 million dogs in 1996 and 68 million dogs in 2000. Of that total, 45% were large dogs -- 40 pounds or more (Watson 2). The toxic elements in dog waste can pollute the water we drink and

use, the soil in our parks, and even the air we breathe. It is known that dog waste can contain parasites and their eggs. Not cleaning up the waste left by a dog can allow these eggs to be washed into streams, hatch in the soil they are left in, or picked up and carried in the air. These are continually carried about by the air currents by passing cars. This favors possible inhaling and swallowing of the eggs, as well as the development of the infection in those who work or live close by (Lastra, et al. 177). Town Lake is an example of an area heavily used by pet owners and by exercise enthusiasts. People who use the park with their dogs owe it to the people who use the park for exercise and recreation to pick up their dog waste. People should not get sick because they are innocently breathing in air that could potentially contain parasitic eggs. The eggs also thrive in the soil they are left in. Soil contaminated with T. canis eggs is the main source of human infection. Water sprinklers in parks create ideal conditions for their survival... children are the most vulnerable (Lastra, et al. 178). Cleaning up after ones dog can eliminate the potential problem embedded within the dogs' own waste. If people choose to not start cleaning up now, the shared spaces we use will become so polluted that they will have to be closed off and removed from the public. Education is the key to informing citizens of the possible health issues caused by dog waste. Dog waste is a problem for the city because of its increase in our landfills. In the United States alone, it is estimated that dogs and cats produce approximately 10 million tons of waste annually, and the disposal of dog waste can pose a significant problem in areas of high-density dog populations (Nemiroff and Patterson 237). Landfills grow as populations in urban areas increase, and can fill with waste from people as well as animals. In San Francisco, for example, animal feces accounts for nearly 4 percent of the citys residential waste... tossed into landfills

inside plastic bags, animal waste becomes a nearly permanent part of the landscape for generations (West 1). Picking up dog waste is a great start in the fight against dog waste becoming a pollution problem. Unfortunately, this will not always be enough in the future. Greening our environment is something that is important to keeping Austin a sustainable and low pollution city. Two environmental geoscience biologists, Nemiroff and Patterson, did a study in urban Montreal, Canada, based upon a composting study done in Alaska, to see if they could promote composting of dog waste in a dog park. To implement this study they needed waste composting bins, dog waste, and sawdust. Compared to wet cattle manure, dog waste contains 40% more nitrogen, the same amount of phosphate, and 1/20 the amount of potash. Due to the high nitrogen content of dog manure, a source high in carbon, such as wood chips, shavings or sawdust is needed for efficient decomposition (Nemiroff and Patterson 238). The findings of the study were remarkable. The design and implementation of a dog waste composting program at an urban dog park was successful. Dog owners participated in the research eagerly (Nemiroff and Patterson 240). Getting people excited about recycling can be the next step in educating citizens about dog waste. Collecting and removing dog waste is one solution, but turning that waste into a reusable item encourages people to become more active in the removal of dog waste. Composting the waste properly allows for the breakdown of potentially harmful elements contained within the waste. In the Alaska study, sample compost bins were tested for parasites, and the results indicated that parasites were not found in the finished compost from dog waste known to be contaminated with parasites (Nemiroff and Patterson 241). Proving that toxic dog waste can be turned into a reusable item will put citizens minds at ease about the composting program.

Nemiroff and Patterson believe that this kind of recycling program could benefit all urban environments. Dog waste composting reduces the amount of waste being sent to landfills, reduces the amount of methane being released into the atmosphere, and can provide poor soil quality areas with an efficient soil amendment product (Nemiroff and Patterson 241). Implementing an urban dog waste composting program in Austin is a possible future solution to the dog waste problem. Education will one day not be enough to curb the possible pollution that comes with the dog waste problem. As a dog owner, people can start with a dogs diet to make the removal of dog waste easier. Large dogs typically produce waste that is of poorer quality than the waste produced by smaller breed dogs. If 45% of the dogs owned are large dogs, then the importance of these dogs' diet can be crucial to the success of removing the waste from it. Therefore, a nutritional strategy to increase the quality of feces in large dogs could consist of reducing the quantity of undigested nutrients reaching the colon. This could be achieved by decreasing dietary fiber intake or through the incorporation of highly digestible protein sources (Leray, et al. 166). One can improve their pets fecal formations easily. Dry food is generally preferable... avoid controversial preservative such as BHA, BHT, ethoxyquin, and sodium nitrate... Avoid dog foods with large amounts of corn and wheat... Look for foods with wholesome ingredients (Conrad 132-133). Feeding ones pet a diet that is easily digestible is one of the ways pet owners can lessen the impact their dogs waste has on our environment. The dog waste awareness program in the Austin area is relatively new and is headed by the Austin Parks and Recreation Department. The people of Austin love their dogs and they love to take them to the parks in the city. According to the City of Austin Parks and Recreation department, there are 251 parks in the Austin area and 12 off leash dog areas. Most parks are

dog friendly and allow owners to keep their dogs on a leash. The City of Austin Parks and Recreation department oversees the parks in conjunction with private citizens and non-profit organizations. All parks, but one, are adopted by private organizations and citizens. This means that these organizations are in charge of implementing any clean up and awareness programs that pertain to dog waste in the city of Austin. Dog waste is a by-product of allowing dogs to use these parks with their owners. The Scoop the Poop program is only one of the agents trying to decrease the pollution problem caused by this waste. Other organizations that partner with Scoop the Poop are, WPD (Watershed Protection Department), PARD, City of Austin Health and Human Services Department, Austin Parks Foundation, and Keep Austin Beautiful. WPD funds program, orders mutt mitts dispensers, and coordinates outreach. PARD installs and maintains mutt mitt dispensers, responds to citizen complaints, and enforces the city ordinance against dog waste being left behind by working with park police. City of Austin Health and Human Services Department distributes information, coordinates volunteer cleanup events, and enforces city code. Austin Parks Foundation distributes information. Keep Austin Beautiful coordinates volunteer cleanup. There are many challenges facing the programs. The first thing keeping these programs from being successful, is that outreach is done mostly during office hours. This completely excludes outreach to people who use parks in the evening. Bill Fraser of the Off Leash Area Advising Committee (OLAAC) and Katie Sternberg of PARD addressed that this was a problem. They stated that younger people use the park in the evening, and they are typically less responsible than the dog owners who used the park in the morning and during the day. They would like to have more outreach in private neighborhoods, but can only focus their budgets on the parks most frequented by people. They simply do not have a budget to create the kind of outreach they know is needed. Outreach to these citizens is the next step for these

programs. They also are aware of some modern technological efforts being made, but were completely unaware of the recycling efforts being done in other cities. Their main focus is on educating the public through word of mouth and by placing information in highly visible park areas. Budget constraints are the first hurdle they must jump over to be able to get to the next level of spreading awareness around the clock. These organizations are trying to make people understand that without active citizen participation in dog waste removal, parks and waterways in Austin will become unusable for human consumption and recreation. The faculty of UCSD have stated that there are six ethical values that all citizens should practice and adhere to. These values are: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship ("Making Ethical Decisions: Core Ethical Values 1). The citizen stakeholders involved with the issue of dog waste are dog owners and citizens of the community. Dog owners are the first group impacted by dog waste. The dog owner is the most accountable for the waste problem and is first person that can make the most change regarding the dog waste problem. If a dog owner chooses not to dispose of the waste properly, then they are the initial link in the dog pollution problem. They have a responsibility to respect their fellow citizens, to act fairly about the waste management, and to care about cleaning up after their pet every time their dog creates waste. The citizens of the community are also impacted by the dog waste problem. The people who live in private communities and use public parks and spaces can be the victims of pet owner neglect. They have to respect pet owners by allowing them to use shared spaces with them. They also have to allow themselves to trust the pet owners to do what is best for all in the community. By creating a dialog between citizens and citizen pet owners about their displeasure with the dog waste situation, they are creating awareness in the pet owner community. Dog waste can be controlled by human owners. By removing dog waste before it

harms environmental sources, people are taking that one variable of pollution out of the equation leading to less waste overall. People who own pets have to understand that they are expected by society to care for their pet in a way that does not harm other people, their personal spaces, and shared spaces. In order for pet owners to meet the needs and obligations that they have to their fellow citizens, they must agree to a set of rules, a contract. A socially accepted set of rules that govern us all lead us to participate willingly in a social contract. People must do their part to make Austin a clean space. If one wants to share clean spaces, then they must be an active participant in maintaining this cleanliness. If all pet owners let their pets waste stay where it is left, we would have a social contract in chaos. Orderly social life is good for both the individual and the community (Brown 121). By establishing a socially accepted set of laws to live by, people can benefit when everyone does their part to make the community a nice place to live. Each person agrees to follow the laws of the state on the condition that everyone else does the same. That way, we are all relatively safe from each other and we all benefit from the other social goods that will result (Gaskill). Adhering to the social contract is beneficial for all of society. It is understood that not everyone will follow the contract set before them, but generally all members conform to the rules. One pet owner not picking up after their dog will not harm a system in which almost all other pet owners do pick up after their dogs. There are many possible solutions to the dog waste problem. If we increase enforcement now, the problem could lessen in the future. The fact that Austin had a problem with this issue and then created a law to enforce it, shows that it is time to enforce it. In 2004, the Department of Sanitation's enforcement in NYC wrote 644 citations for those in violation of the canine waste law ("New Yorkers are Reminded of Canine Waste Law" 1). If Austin wrote 500 citations a year,

that would potentially put $250,000 into the budget to address this problem. This would decrease the need for taxpayer dollars to fund the program, and it would make the program selfsustaining. Writing citations to regular park goers would show that the the city is serious about the problem. Frequent park goers will speak to one another about being cited, and this will create word of mouth about the cost of a citation, which in turn would make people more aware that there is a law against leaving dog waste behind. Setting up informational kiosks in parks is crucial. The posted signs go unnoticed because they are posted with the free poop scooping bags. The kiosks would attract attention and this would lead to more education. Another way the city can show people that they are serious about the problem is to shut down all parks for one week. Doing this will show people what the city would be like without parks for a period of time. Bull Creek was shut down due to waste. If the city shuts down parks for a week to demonstrate how the community would be without them, people will begin to talk and this will make people think. In the future the city could look to composting in dog parks. Asking dog park goers to volunteer would help to eliminate costs. The only things needed for dog composting are bins, dog waste, saw dust, a willingness to participate, and time. The pilot program for dog waste composting in Canada proved to be successful. Trying a small scale composting program in one of the dog parks could be a future solution to the current problem. Dogs are a fixture in the city of Austin, pollution does not have to be. Through education and awareness campaigns, city officials can impress upon citizens the importance of maintaining a clean environment through the removal their pets waste. This education will lead all citizens to become community minded and will ultimately lead the city of Austin to becoming a model city for pet waste pollution management.

Works Cited Beck, Alan M. "The Impact Of The Canine Clean-Up Law." Environment 21.8 (1979): 28. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Nov. 2011.
Brown, Montague. Quest For Moral Foundations : An Introduction To Ethics. Georgetown University Press, 1996. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 14 Dec. 2011.

Conrad, Ulla. "Pet Cuisine." Alive: Canada's Natural Health & Wellness Magazine 275 (2005): 132-133. Alt HealthWatch. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. Gaskill, Dan. "Social Contract Theory." Dan Gaskill's CSUS Philosophy. N.p., 04 09 2006. Web. 14 Dec 2011. <http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/sct.htm>. Jorge W. Santo Domingo, Nicholas J. Ashbolt. Fecal Pollution of Water. Encyclopedia of Earth. Web. 6 Nov. 2011. Leray, et al. "Influence Of Dietary Protein Content And Source On Fecal Quality, Electrolyte Concentrations, And Osmolarity, And Digestibility In Dogs Differing In Body Size." Journal Of Animal Science 88.1 (2010): 159-169. Agricola. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. Nemiroff, Leah, and Judith Patterson. "Design, Testing And Implementation Of A Large-Scale Urban Dog Waste Composting Program." Compost Science & Utilization 15.4 (2007): 237-242. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. New York City of Parks and Recreation Department. NEW YORKERS ARE REMINDED OF

CANINE WASTE LAW. New York City: , 2004. Web. <http://www.nycgovparks.org/news/press-releases?id=19001>. Rodrigo de Jess Pimienta Lastra, et al. "Parasitic Contamination By Dog Feces Collected From The Streets Of San Cristobal De Las Casas, Chiapas, Mexico." Veterinaria Mxico 39.2 (2008): 173-180. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. Traci, Watson. "Water pollution linked to dog do." USA Today (n.d.): Middle Search Plus. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2011. Webley, Paul, and Claire Siviter. "Why Do Some Owners Allow Their Dogs To Foul The Pavement? The Social Psychology Of A Minor Rule Infraction." Journal Of Applied Social Psychology 30.7 (2000): 1371-1380. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. West, Larry. "San Francisco Hopes to Turn Pet Feces Into Power."About.com Guide. 2011: 1. Web. 28 Nov. 2011. References Faculty and Staff, . "Making Ethical Decisions: Core Ethical Values." . Josephson Institute of Ethics, n.d. Web. 26 Nov 2011. <http://blink.ucsd.edu/finance/accountability/ethics/corevalues.html>. Fraser, Bill. Personal Interview. 30 Sept. 11 Hyung-Sook Lee (a, ), 1) Mardelle Shepley (b, and 2) Chang-Shan Huang (c. "Evaluation Of Off-Leash Dog Parks In Texas And Florida: A Study Of Use Patterns, User Satisfaction, And Perception." Landscape And Urban Planning 92.(2009): 314-324. ScienceDirect. Web. 29 Nov. 2011. "Scoop the Poop."Watershed Protection Education. Austin City Connection, 1995. Web. 26 Nov 2011. <http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/wq_scoop.htm>.

Sternberg, Katie. Personal Interview. 30 Sept. 11.