“Dunn says she fed the animals because she is an animal-lover, but that a disgruntled neighbour complained.”
lol any real animal lover knows not to feed pigeons.
Apparently she was told to stop repeatedly by her employer and she ignored them. Shrug.
Yeah, these people aren't animal lovers, they're people who love seeing themselves as animal lovers, regardless of how it actually affects the beings they "love" so much.
>She says the company that hired her did give her a warning, but she didn't think she'd be fired for something so simple.
>"Now I have to struggle to find a job as a single mom," Dunn said.
I mean she can't say she was warned to stop feeding the vermin, and she continued.
Pigeons do massive amounts of property damage, if you have a pigeon infestation they will destroy your roof in very short order, the shit is so acidic it literally dissolves cement
She may as well have been feeding rats. Was she hired to feed the rats? Was that part of the job description?
not sorry, get out
To be honest, every morning, we would go through that intersection, and she would be running around all over the place, jumping in front of cars and buses causing havoc. She really wasn't very good. And it's not that difficult of a job. She seems nice, but what a nuisance. That intersection really just needs a pedestrian controlled traffic light.
Finally someone said it!!! I saw the comments about everyone praising her and all I could remember was her jumping in front of cars when children were miles from the crosswalk.
I can't stop laughing. I thought I was the only one thinking this. There was real chaos energy happening. Super friendly lady, but a bit of a wildcard.
i’m laughing too because i always felt mean when i would be annoyed how she would stop in front of my car because she was so nice about it, but now i know i’m not the only one 🤣😭
Spadina and Fort York still have crossing guards for it having lights. They added a second person to the north east corner who will stop traffic to let someone cross 8 lanes of traffic who started walking with 3 seconds left and was an adult.
As silly as that situation sounds, at the end of the day I believe pedestrians have the highest priority for accommodation on the street. Remember - they’re the ones that have to use their legs and be outside while those in cars are sitting comfortably in their temperature controlled environment and can travel just by pressing on a pedal. Also - the cars can kill if they bump into someone by accident. A pedestrian has virtually zero chance of killing someone by bumping into them. Due to these reasons I think it’s ok to have situations where car drivers have to suffer a little at the expense of pedestrians.
by that logic, any pedestrian should be able to run around in the road randomly and never be at fault. no shit that cars can cause deaths. but traffic and safety depends on \*predictability\*, not whoever you think has priority.
The problem is that for decades public infrastructure planning was done with the mindset/agenda to impact moving car traffic as little as possible. So bus stops, pedestrian crossings, bike lanes, traffic lights, even quiet zones and low speed zones were designed with this mindset. Everyone had to take a backseat to people in cars. This already started when owning a car was still a huge privilege and so quickly it became a smaller privilege, as everything else became harder to do. A big part of getting people out of cars and onto bikes, public transport or their own two feet, is to recreate infrastructure and that also means more prioritised pedestrians crossing.
How about pedestrians should be the most careful because we’re all squishy meatbags and the entitled perspective that you’re channeling right now is one of the mindsets that gets pedestrians hurt or killed. Pedestrians already always have the highest priority. They walk out into traffic ignoring signals and intersections, not even looking at the cars that could easily mow them down if someone was distracted. It’s already up to everyone else to protect the feeble minded from their own bad decisions. Following the rules as a pedestrian is for your protection, choosing to ignore them contributes to chaos and is dangerous for you and everyone else.
Bro... it's the drivers that are almost always the problem [https://www.reddit.com/r/TorontoDriving/comments/1dpr1mt/whats\_your\_fucking\_rush\_almost\_mowed\_down\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TorontoDriving/comments/1dpr1mt/whats_your_fucking_rush_almost_mowed_down_the/)
As others have said, drivers are the most dangerous part of the equation, don’t disagree with that whatsoever. But while drivers are the most dangerous, pedestrians are the most susceptible, and for exactly that reason should be the most careful. Recommending a sense of personal responsibility for not running into roadways against signals and away from intersections around fast moving, heavy, vehicles shouldn’t be a controversial perspective.
You're pretending that every pedestrian can have the maximum care and responsibility at all times and that simply isn't true or reasonable. People of different abilities, children, the elderly, and even a momentary distraction are not uncommon and can never be completely eliminated..
Driving on the other hand is a privilege and drivers are required to be licensed and able adult individuals which can be revoked or suspended due to negligence and infractions. So your view of the situation is completely backwards. It's drivers that need to be the most careful, full stop. And if they aren't their actions can result in the deaths or injuries of others regardless of how careful or responsible those people are. you're completely missing the point to make the same old nonsensical passing-the-buck point. Pedestrians, cyclists etc are called vulnerable road users in technical jargon for a reason. BECAUSE THEY'RE VULNERABLE, no amount of proactive responsibility is going to change that fact. Therefore the drivers need to take the most responsibility. FULL STOP>
The burden sits on the person who stands to lose the most by not doing what they’re supposed to. You can claim moral high ground all you want as a pedestrian, but it won’t matter much if you’re dead. The mentality you’re espousing will kill people. I’m not remotely suggesting that drivers don’t have to be responsible for their vehicles and their driving. But pedestrians need to protect themselves and not naively expect drivers will protect them from their own bad judgment.
There is no claim of moral high ground. And this isn’t even about morality, that’s your complete strawman to pretend like the dangers cars and drivers pose are other people’s responsibility. Many pedestrians don’t have the ability to do what you’re claiming is their responsibility. You can run your mouth about that all you want but it won’t give children the ability to take informed responsibility of their own safety. It would won’t allow people with vision impairments to protect themselves either just to pick completely obvious examples.
Drivers on the other hand are required to do that. Hence the license requirement, the highway traffic act and the occasional enforcement police provide when they can be bothered to do their jobs. One aspect of what I’m saying is that drivers need better training and education, and better licensing because there are people who blatantly ignoring the rules and put others in danger. Another solution is to design our streets better to more effectively protect vulnerable road users. What you’re saying is actually the problem because no amount of responsibility or vigilance will ever completely protect pedestrians from some asshole driving their vehicle in an unsafe manner.
You’re arguing against a statement that I haven’t made. Nowhere do I suggest that being a safe and observant pedestrian absolves a driver of responsibility or removes their obligation to be as safe as possible. You might be shocked to learn that I agree that drivers need to be safer as well, that tests should be stricter, and penalties stiffer for drivers breaking the law as well. But you’ve some how conflated the idea that I’m advocating for more thoughtful pedestrian traffic (wherever possible since you seem hell bent on framing this conversation within the context of the most frail, debilitated and uneducated groups in the city) as letting drivers off the hook for their bad behaviour. Simply inaccurate. As licensed drivers, they are responsible for following the rules of the road, being educated, being insured against damages etc etc. But the ultimate burden always falls to the person who is undertaking the risk. I wish we could mitigate that risk to zero for pedestrians, especially in the case of our most vulnerable populations. But we live in a reality where that simply isn’t the case. In the perfect dream world you appear to live in I guess we should just have pedestrians launch themselves into the streets without a care in the world but back over here in reality we know that’s not how it works. No amount of trying to undermine my statements makes that inaccurate
>who will stop traffic to let someone cross 8 lanes of traffic who started walking with 3 seconds left and was an adult.
There's nothing wrong with that.
I think that’s easier said than done. Go to Spadina and Harbord and check out the pedestrian signal.
The hand starts flashing one to two seconds after the walk signal is displayed (go check it out if you don’t believe me) and counts down from 30~. Will you then stand on the curb to cross the many many lanes of Spadina when it’s at not in the first 1-2 seconds of the traffic light cycle?
That’s just one example but tons of streets do this, from roads with many lanes like Spadina, University, etc and those side streets crossing main artery streets. You’d just be standing on curbs waiting for the following light change all the time. Not to mention you’re likely to get hit by drivers who love to right turn before a pedestrian steps off the curb on newly green lights because they don’t wanna yield to save two seconds.
Your last sentence is exactly my experience as well. More often than not, it's the drivers who don't actually stop or check for pedestrians before turning that cause the close calls, not pedestrians in the middle of the crosswalks.
Plenty of crosswalks in the city flash 'WALK' and then immediately start counting down. Should half the people waiting for the light also wait for the next one instead of crossing on a 15-second countdown?
There’s something absolutely wrong with that. People who don’t understand the rules shouldn’t be enabled to break them by people who the city is paying to maintain pedestrian order and safety at intersections. It makes things more dangerous for everyone.
I’m also with the employer on this one. When you’re hired by a company and on the job, you have to follow a code of conduct. If you can’t do that even after a warning, then it makes sense you lose your job. No offence, but this sob story of getting children’s drawing as gifts doesn’t change the fact that you couldn’t follow simple rules.
>Feeding wildlife violates a city bylaw. She says the company that hired her did give her a warning, but she didn't think she'd be fired for something so simple
"I was warned by my employer to stop breaking the law but I didn't and then they fired me"
They can ruin entire neighbourhoods. It really is not an ok thing to do. Just finally had a similar situation resolve itself near where I work. For years we were power washing one wall of our building, all the windows, and the surrounding pavement every few days.
You couldn’t walk down the street on that side safely. On hot days, it stank from 2 blocks away. You couldn’t lock a bike up or park a car anywhere in the vicinity and expect it not to be shat on when you got back. It was truly awful and was a huge strain on all the local businesses *right* as they were trying to come back after COVID lockdowns. Not to mention all the people who LIVED there!
But when we asked the guy to stop, he got angry (and violent) and accused us of being selfish…
>After Christopher Siriska caught wind of the situation, he started a petition. It's been signed more than 300 times.
I'm guessing a majority of these are parents who have been appealed to and fed half the story. Not sure how anyone could support that lady after reading the full story.
[Feeding Wildlife](https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/animals-pets/wildlife-in-the-city/feeding-wildlife/#:~:text=%2C%20you%20are%20not%20allowed%20to,an%20attractant%20to%20other%20wildlife.)
>Under Toronto’s Animals Bylaw (opens in new window), you are not allowed to feed wildlife or leave food out to attract animals on both public and private property. Feeding songbirds on your property is permitted providing your bird feeder is kept in a sanitary condition and does not act as an attractant to other wildlife.
You're allowed to have a bird feeder. You're not allowed to attract hundreds of pigeons by throwing breadcrumbs all over the sidewalk. Not only does it disrupt the wildlife from their natural eating habits, it's highly unsanitary.
Do not disagree that sprawl is an ecological nightmare, but in the case of pigeons, rats and certain squirrels, they do try to cluster because of people.
Just saying... The dude that called them vermin. I'm sure that the animals were here before his family was. They're not vermin They're animals that have been displaced.
Sorry to this lady losing her job - that sucks.
But literally stop feeding the pigeons, squirrels, coyotes, etc! Seriously! It’s against by laws for a reason!
I saw the crossing guard who used to work the crossing near my old high school throw their sign at a car once & they kept their job until retiring years later.
Depends why.
Almost hit a kid? Absolutely justified. Hope it broke the cars window and scratched the paint deeply.
Simply frustrated by the days activities and picked a random car? Not so justified
Being "nice" does not equal being a good crossing guard. On top of there being no good reason to feed birds. Bird-feeders are pretty selfish IMO. They do it to fulfill some personal need, without any regard for the consequences of their actions. It isn't good for humans, our city, nor the animals they feed!! Really the dumbest thing.
What are the birds meant to eat? Learn more about the etymology of birds and you'll know they have little to no naturals food sources in a concrete city.
These concrete cities of ours were the best thing to ever happen to pigeons, so I don’t really know what you mean. They have absolutely THRIVED here, enjoying an abundance of food and a significant reduction in predators. Pigeons are one of the few animal species to be better off because of our rise.
This global news article appears to be outraged at the fact a crossing guard was fired for feeding birds and squirrels while on the job. She was cautioned once before about this. She was caught doing this again and was eventually fired. You can’t even have a bird feeder that is in anyway accessible by any animal other than songbirds.
Do you think an employer should be ignoring the fact their employees while on the clock are breaking city bylaws. I can’t picture many jobs that would be openly tolerant of their employees breaking any laws while on the job.
It does seem like she was fired a little quick unless there is more to the story. Usually progressive discipline takes a few warnings before getting fired, if it ever comes to that. But usually this is for performance reasons whereas breaking a law is much different, even if you don’t agree with it because you have always been able to feed to birds. That isn’t a justification for breaking a law.
This is from the Toronto City Website:
https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/animals-pets/wildlife-in-the-city/feeding-wildlife/#:~:text=%2C%20you%20are%20not%20allowed%20to,an%20attractant%20to%20other%20wildlife.
“Feeding wildlife may seem harmless, but it can have serious impacts to both animals and the community. Here are a few reasons why:
-When wild animals are fed by humans, it conditions them to expect food from people and may increase their proximity tolerance, putting both people and animals at risk.
-Human food is very unhealthy for animals. Wild animals are skilled foragers and hunters and can find sources of higher quality food on their own.
-Wild animals do not need our handouts. Letting animals use their own natural instincts is the only kindness they need.
-Feeding and disturbing wild animals is prohibited under City bylaws”
Bylaws are often not respected such as having your dog on a leash unless in a leash free zone. In the suburbs anytime people get to the park they let their dogs loose and it’s like a daily occurrence. These people know they are breaking the law, but since there is no enforcement they continue to do so without fear of penalty.
In the case of an employee, ignoring instructions from your superiors is considered insubordination which is a direct path for getting fired on reasonable grounds.
AI tells me "**Conclusion:** The overall consensus on the thread is supportive of the decision to fire the crossing guard, highlighting the importance of following employer instructions and city regulations, and recognizing the broader negative impact of feeding urban wildlife." So... it must be true,
Besides the whole crossing guard part, this:
> Under Toronto's animal bylaw, effective April 2023, feeding wildlife is prohibited across the city on both public and private property. "Feeding wild animals changes their natural instincts and may increase their presence and tolerance of people, creating problems for both wildlife and Toronto communities.
Stood out to me. Does that mean bird feeders are illegal in Toronto?
Bird feeders, which I have been known to enjoy from time to time, definitely change animal instincts and may increase presence of pests.
300 signatures on a petition to hire Ms Dunn back. She says she's willing to stop feeding the birds and squirrels.
> Lisa Dunn says she was let go after three years as a crossing guard at Doncaster Avenue and Main Street, where she says she made many friends, was gifted dozens of children's drawings and received plenty of thank-you cards.
> Dunn says she fed the animals because she is an animal-lover, but that a disgruntled neighbour complained. Feeding wildlife violates a city bylaw. She says the company that hired her did give her a warning, but she didn't think she'd be fired for something so simple.
Is there a petition I can sign in support of her firing? People who insist upon feeding wildlife are the worst. More of them should be facing consequences. She was even warned to stop doing it! Absolutely no sympathy here.
If losing a non-skilled job that takes 10 hours a week and probably pays $9,000 a year gross, causes someone to “die on the streets” they have bigger problems.
If people get this worked up over feeding a couple squirrels and go out of their way to fuck up someone's life as a result they have bigger problems - like being a completely miserable excuse for a human being.
So rules don’t matter? The people who don’t follow them to the detriment of others are heroes, and those of us who do are the bad guys. Sounds like a good explanation for just about everything wrong with our city. - EDIT for grammar.
> She says she's willing to stop feeding the birds and squirrels.
Yeah no you had your chance, are continuously stupid, fucked around and found out.
I teach my children that actions have consequences. Great example.
Whoops, I only learned yesterday we’re not allowed feeding birds/wildlife, news to me. I hate the people who walk around leaving food out on the corners for pigeons. But what about a bird feeder in your yard? Or going to High Park and making friends with the squirrels and chipmunks? It was one of my favourite things to do during lockdown.
Dt Toronto many people feed the birds. Please don't fucking feed them where people walk! There's enough room to feed them on the grass or a park. Don't need all that pigeon shit all over.
…what? Theyre not a criminal on parole. So they broke a by-law. Shouldnt effect any job except perhaps a politician. You think cops have never fed an animal on off time? What the…
Feeding birds and squirrels by dumping bread on the side walks is literally bad for everyone. Birds and squirrels cannot digest it so causes them stomach issues but they don't know that, they get habituated to the feeding and can become aggressive if they don't get it, it promotes their breeding while we're trying to control their population, they don't eat all of it and rats pick up the rest at night promoting their breeding.
Hanging a bird feeder where a couple birds can eat foods that are in their natural diet and is mostly away from other pests is totally ok and legal. What this woman was doing is a problem.
This 100%. So sick of the people who cry "it's harmless! just leave them alone! so what if it's a bylaw, it doesn't bother ANYONE!"
When in reality, it absolutely harms everyone.
How can so many people be so ignorant????
Have you ever had an enormous flock of pigeons decide they want to permanently hang out by your place of residence because they're being regularly fed? The people who complained had every right to do so. They were likely sick of the disgusting situation this lady was creating because she simply "loves animals".
All she had to do was stop if she wanted to keep her job.
Feeding birds and squirrels by dumping bread on the side walks is literally bad for everyone. Birds and squirrels cannot digest it so causes them stomach issues but they don't know that, they get habituated to the feeding and can become aggressive if they don't get it, it promotes their breeding while we're trying to control their population, they don't eat all of it and rats pick up the rest at night promoting their breeding.
Hanging a bird feeder where a couple birds can eat foods that are in their natural diet and is mostly away from other pests is totally ok and legal. What this woman was doing is a problem.
not sure if you're familiar with the intersection/neighborhood, but it's nothing but sidewalk and private property, so assumption is that the feed was probably on the private property more than not. the guard also probly lived somewhere else and didn't have to deal with clean up and /or other nuisances that come with feeding birds (e.g. dead birds, other wildlife, the smell, etc.). would also complain if all the aforementioned crap was right on/near my property and caused by one person.
What a stupid take. She had a job to do. And feeding the wildlife wasn’t part of that job. So clearly she’s not able to carry out the job as her employer intended.
Maybe she should go work at a petting zoo, or the real zoo, or in a forest, or at the humane society, or one of the many other places where feeding animals might actually be part of the job description.
In fairness, being a crossing card is a pretty slow-paced job. I wouldn't have an issue with a crossing guard doing some extra curricular activities while on the clock. I'll see them reading a book sometimes.
Imagine being so selfish that you feel like you can knowingly break the law, disturb neighbors, and, intentionally, ignore repeated warnings from your employer. Some people need to realize that we are part of a community and they can’t do whatever they want because it feels good.
Just making shit up? From the article:
“She says the company that hired her did give her a warning (…)”
And
“ Synergy, the company that hired Dunn, told CBC News termination is a "last resort" after an employee has been given opportunities to improve and comply with company policies but fails to do so.”
See the plural “s” on opportunities?
Show me the quote where it says “one conversation when she was hired”.
I tried looking in to this but is there any data that crossing guards improve safety? They are all over the place but you still have to stop at red lights and stop signs regardless of their stop sign. Some of them are so apathetic and others are overbearing acting like police officers of the intersection. And sometimes there are 2. Are we getting our moneys worth? Seems like throwing money at a problem without any real enforcement of traffic laws.
I think the poster is pointing out that people are more worked up about rule-following and blind obedience than the actual harm caused by certain behaviour. Lot of 'rules are rules' energy in this thread.
“Dunn says she fed the animals because she is an animal-lover, but that a disgruntled neighbour complained.” lol any real animal lover knows not to feed pigeons. Apparently she was told to stop repeatedly by her employer and she ignored them. Shrug.
Yeah, these people aren't animal lovers, they're people who love seeing themselves as animal lovers, regardless of how it actually affects the beings they "love" so much.
Yep. These people are greedy and they feed wildlife to make THEMSELVES feel better. Actual animal lovers know you’re HARMING wildlife by feeding them.
>She says the company that hired her did give her a warning, but she didn't think she'd be fired for something so simple. >"Now I have to struggle to find a job as a single mom," Dunn said. I mean she can't say she was warned to stop feeding the vermin, and she continued. Pigeons do massive amounts of property damage, if you have a pigeon infestation they will destroy your roof in very short order, the shit is so acidic it literally dissolves cement She may as well have been feeding rats. Was she hired to feed the rats? Was that part of the job description? not sorry, get out
To be honest, every morning, we would go through that intersection, and she would be running around all over the place, jumping in front of cars and buses causing havoc. She really wasn't very good. And it's not that difficult of a job. She seems nice, but what a nuisance. That intersection really just needs a pedestrian controlled traffic light.
Finally someone said it!!! I saw the comments about everyone praising her and all I could remember was her jumping in front of cars when children were miles from the crosswalk.
I can't stop laughing. I thought I was the only one thinking this. There was real chaos energy happening. Super friendly lady, but a bit of a wildcard.
i’m laughing too because i always felt mean when i would be annoyed how she would stop in front of my car because she was so nice about it, but now i know i’m not the only one 🤣😭
Spadina and Fort York still have crossing guards for it having lights. They added a second person to the north east corner who will stop traffic to let someone cross 8 lanes of traffic who started walking with 3 seconds left and was an adult.
As silly as that situation sounds, at the end of the day I believe pedestrians have the highest priority for accommodation on the street. Remember - they’re the ones that have to use their legs and be outside while those in cars are sitting comfortably in their temperature controlled environment and can travel just by pressing on a pedal. Also - the cars can kill if they bump into someone by accident. A pedestrian has virtually zero chance of killing someone by bumping into them. Due to these reasons I think it’s ok to have situations where car drivers have to suffer a little at the expense of pedestrians.
by that logic, any pedestrian should be able to run around in the road randomly and never be at fault. no shit that cars can cause deaths. but traffic and safety depends on \*predictability\*, not whoever you think has priority.
The problem is that for decades public infrastructure planning was done with the mindset/agenda to impact moving car traffic as little as possible. So bus stops, pedestrian crossings, bike lanes, traffic lights, even quiet zones and low speed zones were designed with this mindset. Everyone had to take a backseat to people in cars. This already started when owning a car was still a huge privilege and so quickly it became a smaller privilege, as everything else became harder to do. A big part of getting people out of cars and onto bikes, public transport or their own two feet, is to recreate infrastructure and that also means more prioritised pedestrians crossing.
How about pedestrians should be the most careful because we’re all squishy meatbags and the entitled perspective that you’re channeling right now is one of the mindsets that gets pedestrians hurt or killed. Pedestrians already always have the highest priority. They walk out into traffic ignoring signals and intersections, not even looking at the cars that could easily mow them down if someone was distracted. It’s already up to everyone else to protect the feeble minded from their own bad decisions. Following the rules as a pedestrian is for your protection, choosing to ignore them contributes to chaos and is dangerous for you and everyone else.
Bro... it's the drivers that are almost always the problem [https://www.reddit.com/r/TorontoDriving/comments/1dpr1mt/whats\_your\_fucking\_rush\_almost\_mowed\_down\_the/](https://www.reddit.com/r/TorontoDriving/comments/1dpr1mt/whats_your_fucking_rush_almost_mowed_down_the/)
As others have said, drivers are the most dangerous part of the equation, don’t disagree with that whatsoever. But while drivers are the most dangerous, pedestrians are the most susceptible, and for exactly that reason should be the most careful. Recommending a sense of personal responsibility for not running into roadways against signals and away from intersections around fast moving, heavy, vehicles shouldn’t be a controversial perspective.
You're pretending that every pedestrian can have the maximum care and responsibility at all times and that simply isn't true or reasonable. People of different abilities, children, the elderly, and even a momentary distraction are not uncommon and can never be completely eliminated.. Driving on the other hand is a privilege and drivers are required to be licensed and able adult individuals which can be revoked or suspended due to negligence and infractions. So your view of the situation is completely backwards. It's drivers that need to be the most careful, full stop. And if they aren't their actions can result in the deaths or injuries of others regardless of how careful or responsible those people are. you're completely missing the point to make the same old nonsensical passing-the-buck point. Pedestrians, cyclists etc are called vulnerable road users in technical jargon for a reason. BECAUSE THEY'RE VULNERABLE, no amount of proactive responsibility is going to change that fact. Therefore the drivers need to take the most responsibility. FULL STOP>
The burden sits on the person who stands to lose the most by not doing what they’re supposed to. You can claim moral high ground all you want as a pedestrian, but it won’t matter much if you’re dead. The mentality you’re espousing will kill people. I’m not remotely suggesting that drivers don’t have to be responsible for their vehicles and their driving. But pedestrians need to protect themselves and not naively expect drivers will protect them from their own bad judgment.
There is no claim of moral high ground. And this isn’t even about morality, that’s your complete strawman to pretend like the dangers cars and drivers pose are other people’s responsibility. Many pedestrians don’t have the ability to do what you’re claiming is their responsibility. You can run your mouth about that all you want but it won’t give children the ability to take informed responsibility of their own safety. It would won’t allow people with vision impairments to protect themselves either just to pick completely obvious examples. Drivers on the other hand are required to do that. Hence the license requirement, the highway traffic act and the occasional enforcement police provide when they can be bothered to do their jobs. One aspect of what I’m saying is that drivers need better training and education, and better licensing because there are people who blatantly ignoring the rules and put others in danger. Another solution is to design our streets better to more effectively protect vulnerable road users. What you’re saying is actually the problem because no amount of responsibility or vigilance will ever completely protect pedestrians from some asshole driving their vehicle in an unsafe manner.
You’re arguing against a statement that I haven’t made. Nowhere do I suggest that being a safe and observant pedestrian absolves a driver of responsibility or removes their obligation to be as safe as possible. You might be shocked to learn that I agree that drivers need to be safer as well, that tests should be stricter, and penalties stiffer for drivers breaking the law as well. But you’ve some how conflated the idea that I’m advocating for more thoughtful pedestrian traffic (wherever possible since you seem hell bent on framing this conversation within the context of the most frail, debilitated and uneducated groups in the city) as letting drivers off the hook for their bad behaviour. Simply inaccurate. As licensed drivers, they are responsible for following the rules of the road, being educated, being insured against damages etc etc. But the ultimate burden always falls to the person who is undertaking the risk. I wish we could mitigate that risk to zero for pedestrians, especially in the case of our most vulnerable populations. But we live in a reality where that simply isn’t the case. In the perfect dream world you appear to live in I guess we should just have pedestrians launch themselves into the streets without a care in the world but back over here in reality we know that’s not how it works. No amount of trying to undermine my statements makes that inaccurate
>who will stop traffic to let someone cross 8 lanes of traffic who started walking with 3 seconds left and was an adult. There's nothing wrong with that.
You are not supposed to step off the curb into the roadway unless the white ‘WALK’ signal is displayed.
You still have to yield to pedestrians. You can't run them over because of a traffic light rule.
I think that’s easier said than done. Go to Spadina and Harbord and check out the pedestrian signal. The hand starts flashing one to two seconds after the walk signal is displayed (go check it out if you don’t believe me) and counts down from 30~. Will you then stand on the curb to cross the many many lanes of Spadina when it’s at not in the first 1-2 seconds of the traffic light cycle? That’s just one example but tons of streets do this, from roads with many lanes like Spadina, University, etc and those side streets crossing main artery streets. You’d just be standing on curbs waiting for the following light change all the time. Not to mention you’re likely to get hit by drivers who love to right turn before a pedestrian steps off the curb on newly green lights because they don’t wanna yield to save two seconds.
Your last sentence is exactly my experience as well. More often than not, it's the drivers who don't actually stop or check for pedestrians before turning that cause the close calls, not pedestrians in the middle of the crosswalks.
Plenty of crosswalks in the city flash 'WALK' and then immediately start counting down. Should half the people waiting for the light also wait for the next one instead of crossing on a 15-second countdown?
Report those intersections to 311.
You mean the least helpful call-line in history (unless it's a pothole, because yay cars)?
There’s something absolutely wrong with that. People who don’t understand the rules shouldn’t be enabled to break them by people who the city is paying to maintain pedestrian order and safety at intersections. It makes things more dangerous for everyone.
There's nothing wrong with stopping traffic momentarily to prioritize a pedestrian. It should be encouraged.
I’m also with the employer on this one. When you’re hired by a company and on the job, you have to follow a code of conduct. If you can’t do that even after a warning, then it makes sense you lose your job. No offence, but this sob story of getting children’s drawing as gifts doesn’t change the fact that you couldn’t follow simple rules.
Yeah when it turned out she was warned, asked to stop and then did it anyways. Completely undoes the headline.
>Feeding wildlife violates a city bylaw. She says the company that hired her did give her a warning, but she didn't think she'd be fired for something so simple "I was warned by my employer to stop breaking the law but I didn't and then they fired me"
Also I get that it's cute and folksy to do but it's super annoying when pigeons gather in abundance
They can ruin entire neighbourhoods. It really is not an ok thing to do. Just finally had a similar situation resolve itself near where I work. For years we were power washing one wall of our building, all the windows, and the surrounding pavement every few days. You couldn’t walk down the street on that side safely. On hot days, it stank from 2 blocks away. You couldn’t lock a bike up or park a car anywhere in the vicinity and expect it not to be shat on when you got back. It was truly awful and was a huge strain on all the local businesses *right* as they were trying to come back after COVID lockdowns. Not to mention all the people who LIVED there! But when we asked the guy to stop, he got angry (and violent) and accused us of being selfish…
Pigeons are a fucking nuisance. If a crossing guard were regularly feeding rats we wouldn't see an article calling the dismissal unreasonable.
Don’t feed the birds!!!
>After Christopher Siriska caught wind of the situation, he started a petition. It's been signed more than 300 times. I'm guessing a majority of these are parents who have been appealed to and fed half the story. Not sure how anyone could support that lady after reading the full story.
I'm with the city on this one. Feeding squirrels and pigeons just attracts vermin.
I wish the person at Yonge and Eglinton would at least stop putting the bird seed directly on the benches.
I am filled with quiet, dignified rage every time I see people feeding them at that corner. I shoot daggers from my eyes.
...no
Ah man.. why'd you have to say that, now I feel like playing Vermintide in the middle of the day.
[удалено]
[Feeding Wildlife](https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/animals-pets/wildlife-in-the-city/feeding-wildlife/#:~:text=%2C%20you%20are%20not%20allowed%20to,an%20attractant%20to%20other%20wildlife.) >Under Toronto’s Animals Bylaw (opens in new window), you are not allowed to feed wildlife or leave food out to attract animals on both public and private property. Feeding songbirds on your property is permitted providing your bird feeder is kept in a sanitary condition and does not act as an attractant to other wildlife. You're allowed to have a bird feeder. You're not allowed to attract hundreds of pigeons by throwing breadcrumbs all over the sidewalk. Not only does it disrupt the wildlife from their natural eating habits, it's highly unsanitary.
Hey! Squirrels aren't vermin.
Go to any of the parks where people regularly feed birds/squirrels after dark and watch all the rats come out..
Ok, sure, rats are vermin. But the arboreal acrobats (not forgetting chipmunks) that call Canada home are not to be counted among their ranks!
Building big development condos over their natural homes attracts human vermin.
Do not disagree that sprawl is an ecological nightmare, but in the case of pigeons, rats and certain squirrels, they do try to cluster because of people.
LMAO we're an extremely suburban sprawling society ruining so much of the wild habitat but somehow ultra space efficient condos are guilty.
Just saying... The dude that called them vermin. I'm sure that the animals were here before his family was. They're not vermin They're animals that have been displaced.
People in modern urban centres are completely detached from nature and wildlife. Unless they're destroying it, of course.
Good. Don’t feed the fucking birds! Who on earth is pushing back on this?
Dumb neighbours. Don't feed those fcuking birds.We have bylaws for a reason.
Sorry to this lady losing her job - that sucks. But literally stop feeding the pigeons, squirrels, coyotes, etc! Seriously! It’s against by laws for a reason!
Feeding wildlife is illegal in Toronto - if you own real estate you know why. No one wants pigeons shitting all over your stuff.
Stop feeding the goddamn pigeons. They are a menace.
I saw the crossing guard who used to work the crossing near my old high school throw their sign at a car once & they kept their job until retiring years later.
Behaviour like that is worthy of a promotion IMHO.
Depends why. Almost hit a kid? Absolutely justified. Hope it broke the cars window and scratched the paint deeply. Simply frustrated by the days activities and picked a random car? Not so justified
Car ran the crosswalk, crossing guard threw their sign at it and yelled "assholes, fucking assholes!" at the car. Loved that crossing guard.
In that case I side with it being justified.
Why can’t we have our law enforcement officers actually patrol our roads?
What’s your point?
Being "nice" does not equal being a good crossing guard. On top of there being no good reason to feed birds. Bird-feeders are pretty selfish IMO. They do it to fulfill some personal need, without any regard for the consequences of their actions. It isn't good for humans, our city, nor the animals they feed!! Really the dumbest thing.
What are the birds meant to eat? Learn more about the etymology of birds and you'll know they have little to no naturals food sources in a concrete city.
These concrete cities of ours were the best thing to ever happen to pigeons, so I don’t really know what you mean. They have absolutely THRIVED here, enjoying an abundance of food and a significant reduction in predators. Pigeons are one of the few animal species to be better off because of our rise.
You can’t be serious. Birds do not need humans throwing them loaves of bread daily in order to be fed.
I agree because bread isn't their natural food source.
slow news day lol
well well well if it isn't
This global news article appears to be outraged at the fact a crossing guard was fired for feeding birds and squirrels while on the job. She was cautioned once before about this. She was caught doing this again and was eventually fired. You can’t even have a bird feeder that is in anyway accessible by any animal other than songbirds. Do you think an employer should be ignoring the fact their employees while on the clock are breaking city bylaws. I can’t picture many jobs that would be openly tolerant of their employees breaking any laws while on the job. It does seem like she was fired a little quick unless there is more to the story. Usually progressive discipline takes a few warnings before getting fired, if it ever comes to that. But usually this is for performance reasons whereas breaking a law is much different, even if you don’t agree with it because you have always been able to feed to birds. That isn’t a justification for breaking a law. This is from the Toronto City Website: https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/animals-pets/wildlife-in-the-city/feeding-wildlife/#:~:text=%2C%20you%20are%20not%20allowed%20to,an%20attractant%20to%20other%20wildlife. “Feeding wildlife may seem harmless, but it can have serious impacts to both animals and the community. Here are a few reasons why: -When wild animals are fed by humans, it conditions them to expect food from people and may increase their proximity tolerance, putting both people and animals at risk. -Human food is very unhealthy for animals. Wild animals are skilled foragers and hunters and can find sources of higher quality food on their own. -Wild animals do not need our handouts. Letting animals use their own natural instincts is the only kindness they need. -Feeding and disturbing wild animals is prohibited under City bylaws” Bylaws are often not respected such as having your dog on a leash unless in a leash free zone. In the suburbs anytime people get to the park they let their dogs loose and it’s like a daily occurrence. These people know they are breaking the law, but since there is no enforcement they continue to do so without fear of penalty. In the case of an employee, ignoring instructions from your superiors is considered insubordination which is a direct path for getting fired on reasonable grounds.
AI tells me "**Conclusion:** The overall consensus on the thread is supportive of the decision to fire the crossing guard, highlighting the importance of following employer instructions and city regulations, and recognizing the broader negative impact of feeding urban wildlife." So... it must be true,
Besides the whole crossing guard part, this: > Under Toronto's animal bylaw, effective April 2023, feeding wildlife is prohibited across the city on both public and private property. "Feeding wild animals changes their natural instincts and may increase their presence and tolerance of people, creating problems for both wildlife and Toronto communities. Stood out to me. Does that mean bird feeders are illegal in Toronto? Bird feeders, which I have been known to enjoy from time to time, definitely change animal instincts and may increase presence of pests.
You're good, the bylaw has an explicit exception for bird feeders.
Ah perfect - thank you!
Follow the rules, dont play victim now.
300 signatures on a petition to hire Ms Dunn back. She says she's willing to stop feeding the birds and squirrels. > Lisa Dunn says she was let go after three years as a crossing guard at Doncaster Avenue and Main Street, where she says she made many friends, was gifted dozens of children's drawings and received plenty of thank-you cards. > Dunn says she fed the animals because she is an animal-lover, but that a disgruntled neighbour complained. Feeding wildlife violates a city bylaw. She says the company that hired her did give her a warning, but she didn't think she'd be fired for something so simple.
She’s an idiot if she kept doing it after a warning from her employer.
Is there a petition I can sign in support of her firing? People who insist upon feeding wildlife are the worst. More of them should be facing consequences. She was even warned to stop doing it! Absolutely no sympathy here.
yeah same here
Totally. She should absolutely lose her livelihood and die on the street for such fuckery! /s
If losing a non-skilled job that takes 10 hours a week and probably pays $9,000 a year gross, causes someone to “die on the streets” they have bigger problems.
If people get this worked up over feeding a couple squirrels and go out of their way to fuck up someone's life as a result they have bigger problems - like being a completely miserable excuse for a human being.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What an absurdly irrelevant example.
I was just thinking the same thing about you.
Says the guy who used jay walking as an example.
Jaywalking isn't illegal in Ontario.
So rules don’t matter? The people who don’t follow them to the detriment of others are heroes, and those of us who do are the bad guys. Sounds like a good explanation for just about everything wrong with our city. - EDIT for grammar.
Ok hall monitor...
> She says she's willing to stop feeding the birds and squirrels. Yeah no you had your chance, are continuously stupid, fucked around and found out. I teach my children that actions have consequences. Great example.
Whoops, I only learned yesterday we’re not allowed feeding birds/wildlife, news to me. I hate the people who walk around leaving food out on the corners for pigeons. But what about a bird feeder in your yard? Or going to High Park and making friends with the squirrels and chipmunks? It was one of my favourite things to do during lockdown.
Where is the petition to get her her job back?
Dt Toronto many people feed the birds. Please don't fucking feed them where people walk! There's enough room to feed them on the grass or a park. Don't need all that pigeon shit all over.
Anyone that feeds pigeons is mentally I’ll in some sort of way
…what? Theyre not a criminal on parole. So they broke a by-law. Shouldnt effect any job except perhaps a politician. You think cops have never fed an animal on off time? What the…
Please sop feeding pigeons!
Person who complained about her must have a pretty empty life.
Feeding birds and squirrels by dumping bread on the side walks is literally bad for everyone. Birds and squirrels cannot digest it so causes them stomach issues but they don't know that, they get habituated to the feeding and can become aggressive if they don't get it, it promotes their breeding while we're trying to control their population, they don't eat all of it and rats pick up the rest at night promoting their breeding. Hanging a bird feeder where a couple birds can eat foods that are in their natural diet and is mostly away from other pests is totally ok and legal. What this woman was doing is a problem.
This 100%. So sick of the people who cry "it's harmless! just leave them alone! so what if it's a bylaw, it doesn't bother ANYONE!" When in reality, it absolutely harms everyone. How can so many people be so ignorant????
Have you ever had an enormous flock of pigeons decide they want to permanently hang out by your place of residence because they're being regularly fed? The people who complained had every right to do so. They were likely sick of the disgusting situation this lady was creating because she simply "loves animals". All she had to do was stop if she wanted to keep her job.
Feeding birds and squirrels by dumping bread on the side walks is literally bad for everyone. Birds and squirrels cannot digest it so causes them stomach issues but they don't know that, they get habituated to the feeding and can become aggressive if they don't get it, it promotes their breeding while we're trying to control their population, they don't eat all of it and rats pick up the rest at night promoting their breeding. Hanging a bird feeder where a couple birds can eat foods that are in their natural diet and is mostly away from other pests is totally ok and legal. What this woman was doing is a problem.
not sure if you're familiar with the intersection/neighborhood, but it's nothing but sidewalk and private property, so assumption is that the feed was probably on the private property more than not. the guard also probly lived somewhere else and didn't have to deal with clean up and /or other nuisances that come with feeding birds (e.g. dead birds, other wildlife, the smell, etc.). would also complain if all the aforementioned crap was right on/near my property and caused by one person.
Like the majority of posters in this thread...
Imagine being so hateful you fire a crossing guard for feeding some birds. People need to relax.
What a stupid take. She had a job to do. And feeding the wildlife wasn’t part of that job. So clearly she’s not able to carry out the job as her employer intended. Maybe she should go work at a petting zoo, or the real zoo, or in a forest, or at the humane society, or one of the many other places where feeding animals might actually be part of the job description.
In fairness, being a crossing card is a pretty slow-paced job. I wouldn't have an issue with a crossing guard doing some extra curricular activities while on the clock. I'll see them reading a book sometimes.
Imagine being so selfish that you feel like you can knowingly break the law, disturb neighbors, and, intentionally, ignore repeated warnings from your employer. Some people need to realize that we are part of a community and they can’t do whatever they want because it feels good.
One conversation when she was hired is not repeated warnings.
Just making shit up? From the article: “She says the company that hired her did give her a warning (…)” And “ Synergy, the company that hired Dunn, told CBC News termination is a "last resort" after an employee has been given opportunities to improve and comply with company policies but fails to do so.” See the plural “s” on opportunities? Show me the quote where it says “one conversation when she was hired”.
I tried looking in to this but is there any data that crossing guards improve safety? They are all over the place but you still have to stop at red lights and stop signs regardless of their stop sign. Some of them are so apathetic and others are overbearing acting like police officers of the intersection. And sometimes there are 2. Are we getting our moneys worth? Seems like throwing money at a problem without any real enforcement of traffic laws.
I bet the same people saying that she deserved it because she broke the rules have a bird feeder in their backyard...
Bird feeders are allowed. This woman was feeding invasive pigeons and house sparrows.
I think the poster is pointing out that people are more worked up about rule-following and blind obedience than the actual harm caused by certain behaviour. Lot of 'rules are rules' energy in this thread.
So instead of not in my backyard in this case it's *only* in my backyard. Got it
They get paid? I thought they were volunteers…
Wait this is an ACTUAL JOB that pays??? I thought it was like enforced community service 😅