Having raised labrador puppies with my family I am surprised by the dog owners of today. Dogs take time and effort. They must get daily training love and socialization. They are animals and without the training they are dangerous. Too many people make ridiculous excuses for out of control animals. If you chose to own a dog that is poorly trained and it bites you lose your right to determine what happens next. I was bitten by a german shepard that jumped a 5 ft. fence, ran 200 yds. to pull me off my bicycle and the owner called the dog in and denied it. Stitches and painful shots later, the owner told me I hated dogs. Really, I raised gentle dogs - you raised a vicious dog. People wake up dogs don't get dressed, they are not children they are wonderful animals. Take care of them so the state doesn't have to step in.

It's amazing that people just can't be civil and adhere to the simple rules in what was a very fair compromise. They should be fined further until they and their dogs learn to play well with others.

It's easy to scare people with the prospect of dog bites but the truth is that the vast majority of dog owners are responsible with both making sure that they pick up after their dogs as well as ensuring your safety by not letting dogs off leash when they are not properly socialized. No one needs to be worried about getting bitten by vicious dogs at Breakheart Reservation. It is irresponsible of the globe to promote these types of scare tactics and misinformation.

come to Essex with your dogs! No leash laws, no law, no order. Soon, you can register your dog to vote.

Another instance of a few bad apples trying to ruin something for the rest of us...

I agree! Handle your dog! I hate it when dog owners act as if their dog is not capable of biting! Thats like assuming an eagle is not capable of flying. Some dog owners are just inconsiderate and try to equate their dogs with humans, giving them all of the same rights and proviledges. How about not only giving fines, but lock up the dog in a kennel contingent upon the infraction!

"According to group members"???? Is that how low the Globe's standard of journalism has fallen? Did anyone bother to fact-check these reports? I suspect the Globe is rather naive in dog issues. What typically happens is that the abutters to the forest land realize that 80% of the visitors to the forest have dogs with them. Then the chain of thought goes something like this: Get rid of the dogs, get rid of the people, get rid of visitors to the forest, get rid of the cars driving your neighborhood and parking in your neighborhood, have the forest as your own private estate. Despite the fact that it's PUBLIC land. Residents of Massachusetts have been walking these state forests for hundreds of years with horses, mules, and dogs. The concept of leash laws did not even exist until the 1970's when the explosion in local ordinances and local prohibition laws began. Dog bites, aggressive dogs, nuisance dogs, leaving dog waste behind, and not having a healthy, vaccinated dog - these things are ALL ALREADY ILLEGAL and punishable with fines and worse. Banning all off-leash dogs, or all dogs, is like banning all men because one man committed a crime in the park. It's just intolerance, it's not a logical policy. If someone's dog bit someone they're already breaking the rules. These people will not leash their dog because of a new rule. What will happen is that the 99% of dog owners who are responsible will stay away, which often exacerbates problems with waste and aggressive dogs. The responsible dog owners police these people FAR better than the under-funded DCR ever will. These are all things you realize quickly when you're actually in the woods every day. Rather than just agreeing with every elitist group that comes along wanting to increase punishments, as the Globe loves to do. In fact dog access is a very classist issue. The people using parks for walking dogs are typically middle class, and the people that own abutting properties are typically upper class and don't care to mix with other folks.