Well not the worst, but according to this highly un-scientific study by Mens Health Magazine, Boston rates 5th from the bottom - 45th of out the 50 cities studied. The way they rated the cities is questionable as they really didn’t do anything other than add up somewhat unrelated resources including:
- Percentage of dog ownership (ownership #’s were collected by state - which is inaccurate in this case)
- Number of dog parks per capita (doesn’t take Boston’s huge amount of shared parks)
- Pet and pet supply stores per capita (umm what about internet pet stores)
- Shelters per capita (how does this show an area is dog friendly?)
- Boarding/daycare centers per capita (what about fewer larger facilites)
- Vet practices per capita (ok this one seems to make sense)
- Lowest number of heartworm cases reported (what does this have to do with dog friendliness)
The data is old. The study is unscientific. Sure this stuff makes news, and gets a lot of other people to write about and link to their website (thereby increasing traffic), but to rank Boston 45th?? Although I’ve never been a Mens Health reader, but if I were, I’d cancel my subscription based on this assessment of my city.
So who is worse than Boston?
El Paso, Jacksonville, Washington, Detroit.
Great. Just great.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Jan Dumas // Jun 8, 2007 at 10:06 pm
We do not have a lot of small vet offices, we instead have the number one vet hospital in the country, and an amazing vet college.
I so disagree with the article.
2 Ari // Jun 8, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I’m curious: If you’re not a Men’s Health reader, why were you reading it? Moreover, aside from obvious benefits of pets to human health, why run this?
You should submit a letter to the editor.
3 Brian // Jun 8, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Thanks for your comment Ari.
You mean “how” did I find this, if I’m not a reader?
- Well, I scan the news frequently for dog stories whether they be global, national, or local.
A letter to editor is so Web 1.0… but I’d much rather complain on my blog which is more Web 2.0 !
4 Sam // Jun 20, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Personally I so agree with the ranking. At least for the fact that I live near Detroit (which ranked as the worst city) and I can tell people here are just not very friendly to dogs. Also apartment management charges a huge amount of non-refundable “pet fee” and something like $30-50/pet “pet rent” monthly. This is just ridiculous.
5 Brian // Jun 21, 2007 at 6:09 am
Yes, but Boston and Detroit really have nothing in common…
6 Rebecca // Aug 17, 2007 at 11:16 am
Actually I agree with the article as well. I lived in NYC (Manhattan) for two years with my two dogs, and that city really knows how to cater to pets and pet owners. There are dog parks everywhere, and trash cans abound on the streets for throwing away bags after your dog has done his/her duty, and for the most part everyone there picks up after their dogs. There were also a far greater number of vet offices to choose from (greater competition means a greater level of service and better pricing for the consumer). Also, a much higher percentage of buildings in NYC (as compared to Boston) are pet-friendly. Don’t get me wrong, I am a Boston girl through and through, and am glad to be back here in Boston, but have found the sharp contrast between Boston and NYC on dog-friendliness sort of shocking and disappointing. Those of you who disagreed with the article - have you lived in other major metropolitan areas? I think Boston is getting more dog friendly, but it still has a way to go and I doubt will ever top the charts in this category — unfortunately.
7 Christine // Aug 17, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I disagree with the ranking. I used to live in the San Francisco Bay Area, where only helper dogs are allowed on BART and only dogs in crates (which pretty much rules out larger dogs) are allowed on buses… same deal with NYC, I believe. I could see how it works NYC, where it’s easier to walk places, but SF is so sprawly that I imagine it’d be hard to take trips with a dog if you didn’t have a car.
By allowing all types of leashed dogs to ride on the T during off-peak hours, Boston is MUCH more dog-friendly than NYC or SF in terms of public transit. I care a lot less about, say, walking an extra block to a trash can than I do about a dog being allowed on tranist, but maybe that’s just me.
8 Adam // Sep 18, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I found your blog via Google while searching for dog boarding and your post regarding Worst City to Own a Dog? What? looks very interesting for me
Leave a Comment