Present: Smirk, Whale Wanker, Pool Boy Ron, Bobbin Robin, Shagedellic, Hardly, Pick Your Part, Kawkey Horror, Gnu Moon, Burning Bush, Snevil, Wet One, Dreary, Krusty, Rag Head
In approximate order of discussion….
Motion: The entry fee of $100 for the 24-Hour Relay be paid by the Calgary Hash. CARRIED
Dates for the 24-Hour Relay are June 8-9, the Hash Camp Horizon run will be June 4.
To summarise …
Shagadellic has sent an e-mail to Mismanagement as follows:
Fellow mismanagement, in my two short years of Hashing there seems to be
one controversial issue which rears it's ugly head over and over again.
I feel I can easily speak for the masses when I say I grow ever
increasingly tried of having dogs cutting Hashers off, Hashers tripping
over leashes etc. during runs.
And yes, we all heard the arguments that MY dog is not the problem. Or
it should be OK if I run back of the pack with my dog.
As we all know with any well-marked trail you can easy end up running
front, middle and back of the pack due to checks/ check backs.
What the real issue here is, if we let one Hasher bring their dog then
we send out the message that it is OK for all to bring their dogs.
This is where the problem exists. As an example, on April 9th I had the
pleasure of co-haring a run, which included 77 runners and 8 dogs. Which
without doubt creates chaos.
As a matter of consideration for the majority I would have to politely
ask that for only one night of the week.... Hash night. Please leave your
dogs at home.
Further, I would also ask that this topic be brought up for discussion
at the next mismanagement meeting.
ON ON, Shagadelic
Lumberjack replied by e-mail as follows:
To all concerned:
Well written!
Before I continue, and before you scroll to the end, or glance to the header, to see who has what attitude, let me say that I love dogs (well, most of them...sort of like Hashers).
About 1995 or thereabouts, the Hash sought out expert legal opinion re dogs, accidents, injuries and otherwise potentially libellous situations on Hash runs, and the resulting legal opinion was that whatever the situation, it was the organiser(s) of the specific event (run) who were liable in the event of a misfortunate incident. In the case of the Hash, this was determined legally to be the HARES, not the Mismanagement!
At that time it was voted by Mismanagement to outlaw dogs as authorized participants on the runs (dogs become participants when on a run in the care of their owners or handlers). To the best of my knowledge, that decision has never been overturned. Later, (about 1997 or thereabouts) a Hasher and his Hasher spouse showed up on a run at Nose Hill with their dog (and a small, wonderful dog at that!) claiming that since it was so small and innocent, what could be the harm? These Hashers were NOT Lakey and Ptooie, but the precedent was established. A gradual degradation of the "NO Dogs" policy has obviously since occurred.
Hashing seems like such an obviously great event for dogs. And it is. FOR A DOG HASH! Hashing is a human endeavour. When people are running hither and yon looking for marks (or beer), it is not often they can outrun dogs. Dogs, which in their enthusiasm, run across Hashers' paths; while off a leash, or worse yet, on a leash; causing potentially serious injury to the Hasher, and/or to the dog.
Dogs biting Hashers, and dogs getting into fights have also occurred.
Despite what most dog owners would believe, the Calgary Hash is no place for children, or their surrogates, as wonderful, cute, well behaved, quiet, intelligent beings as they are. They are for the home; on your lap, at your feet, or trotting beside you on an evening stroll, as your best, most forgiving friend. Or they are for the Canine and Kids Hash.
In case anyone dares mention Grasshopper as a precedent accepted by the Hash, may they choke on every beer they ever drink again. Because Grasshopper (may he rest well, with lots of popcorn) was a guide dog for Batman. And Grasshopper was one of the best Hashers ever! (Maybe the Canine Hash should have an annual run in his honour?)
Rambling on: As noted above, THE HARE has the final responsibility. Could you imagine being a Hare on a run where a bunch of dogs show up, and YOU had to tell the owners they could not participate with the dogs? (once in the circle, acknowledgement of participation is given)
The responsibility to widely acknowledge and advertise a "NO DOGS" policy should be that of Mismanagement. Mismanagement should not be willing to accept the power without the responsibility of communicating negative news to those who need to hear it. Bite the bullet!
Enough ranting, and thanks to Shagadellic for coming forward with a legitimate complaint; often spoken of (in hushed voices, away from those who might be offended) in the Hash, but not dealt with!Lumberjack
Much discussion ensued …….
Dreary: Mismanagement did look at liability in regards to trails and the dog issue came up later. It was decided to ban dogs but the problem of the Hash banning dogs on public streets and pathways was raised. It was decided then that dogs must be at the back of the pack, not a part of the circle, and not officially part of the event. In his opinion, dogs should be allowed under certain conditions.
Lumberjack responded with the opinion that a policy, not a by-law is needed.
Whale Wanker: The issue is of safety, and dogs at the back of the pack don’t always stay there given the nature of Hashing. There shouldn’t be anything other than natural hazards on a trail. He is also opposed to recognising milestones for dogs.
Gnu Moon: If the Hash accepts Hash Cash from dog-toting Hashers, the implication is that the dogs are acceptable.
Pool Boy Ron: The issue is very emotional and perhaps should be approached as an educational one. Should the legal side be revisited?
Kawkey: The assets of the Calgary Hash are negligible in terms of lawsuits, and the Hash has never been sued. There is no legal issue and common sense would be a better approach.
Lumberjack: The issue may not be of legality but of enjoyment of Hashers.
Bobbin Robin: What about kids in strollers or other impediments? Hashers with strollers do respect the other runners but dogs by their inquisitive nature are an obstacle.
Burning Bush: A decision needs to be made, the issue can’t be left to resolve itself.
Kawkey: A larger potential problem may be in the nature of the trails themselves and not with dogs, however even one dog sets a precedent.
Krusty: There needs to be some recognition on the part of runners not to suddenly overtake or startle dogs on the Hash. Common sense works both ways.
Hardly: Do we need a new policy or just educate the Hash on existing policy?
Smirk: There are 6 other days to exercise dogs, not at the Hash.
Wet One: The majority of responses from the Hash supported getting a policy and publicising it. It would be prudent to apply existing policy before amending it. As it stands, dogs are to be kept at the back of the pack on a short leash away from the majority of runners, and are not part of the circle.
Dreary: The dog issue was dealt with successfully in the past. Now that the problem has arisen again, the policy needs to be re-publicised.
Bobbin Robin: The policy is inconsistent, if dogs are allowed, why not bikes?
Motion: The Calgary Hash will educate dog owners based on existing policy. This issue will be revisited on a timely basis, at a maximum of two months, and if it is still contentious will go to a vote of mismanagement. CARRIED
Wet One will address the Hash and will speak with individuals as directed or needed.
Burning Bush suggested amending the information sheet for new Hashers to reflect this policy.
Whale Wanker: Motion: Milestones should not be observed for dogs. CARRIED
Whew! Meeting closed at 8:30
Dutifully recorded by Snevil