Search this site:


January 17, 2006 12:03 AM

Broken: "No pets" sign

Pets_1 Tom McGahee sends in a picture of a "No pets" sign:

This sign is at the South Carolina Welcome center.

Are pets allowed if one follows the restrictions?

Or are pets not allowed at all?


the bottom sign is a misspelling of vets. or maybe it's the top one.

Posted by: gmangw at January 17, 2006 12:35 AM

Maybe the area beyond the sign is not one of the designated areas for pets.

Posted by: Me at January 17, 2006 01:26 AM

I wonder how they'll get rid of the pets already there.

Posted by: Cole Passannante at January 17, 2006 01:45 AM

Its the area 51 of dog walking sites.

Be on leash.

Walk on paths.


Posted by: Kip HT at January 17, 2006 06:22 AM

No Pets is short for No Petroleum based products. They're just concerned about the environment.

Posted by: Chris B at January 17, 2006 09:37 AM

It is broken, but maybe what they were *trying* to do, was state that particular area is the no pets zone. Pets are allowed in designated areas only, and that's not one of them.

To that end, they should have switched the signs. Might read better.

Posted by: Brooke Browne at January 17, 2006 09:51 AM

I like how the top 2 signs are separated. If the top one fell off, the bottom would be a bit confusing.

Posted by: dsynadinos at January 17, 2006 09:52 AM

It may have started as a Pets area but later was changed and the person who put up the sign might have been lazy. Places in my area have been changing the rules about pets and "covering" the old signs with the new ones.

Posted by: Deathbob at January 17, 2006 10:29 AM

In our travels, we've seen similar signs in many highway rest areas. Typically there are one or two designated pet walking areas and the rest of the grassy and/or picnic areas are "no pet" zones. The top signs (or something similar) are posted in all the areas, presumably to enforce the rule that pets must be leashed and controlled no matter what. This keeps people from walking to the pet area and releasing their dog off the leash.

The whole system is not broken, and this single photo does not show the overall context. In fact, the system works well. Most of the pet waste is contained to a small, clearly marked area and people who want to avoid the animal areas can easily do so.

Posted by: Louise at January 17, 2006 10:48 AM

I think that as long as wild animals such as squirrels and chipmunks are allowed in the park, then pets must be allowed too. Otherwise it is just discrimination against the domesticated animals. So unfair that the squirrels and chipmunks aren't required to at least wear a leash in restricted areas.

Posted by: Confused Shopper at January 17, 2006 11:11 AM

It means no pets are allowed, but if you do have to break the rule, please keep them on a leash and on the proper pathway.

Posted by: T-1000 at January 17, 2006 12:16 PM

What bothers me is the way the top sign is fully justified, while the bottom two use centered text. There is too much white space, er, blue space between "must" and "be".

The formatting suggests a park ranger saying, each work emphasized, "All...Pets...Must...Be...On...Leash." and then, as the audience starts walking away, quickly adding "and walk in designated areas only." Then as they walk away, he changes his mind and says, "NO PETS! THE WAY YOU PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION, I CAN TELL YOU ARE ALL RULE BREAKERS!"

Posted by: WillF at January 17, 2006 12:36 PM

I agree with Deathbob. Someone was lazy. He was only told to put up these signs, yet to save time and metal stakes, he put them all in one place.

Also I believe the sign should say "nextel" or "nextel users" not "pets".

Posted by: Poindexter T Quakenfuss at January 17, 2006 04:40 PM

All pets must be on leash!

Oh yeah, and while we're at it, walk in designated areas only!

Ah, to heck with it. NO PETS!

Posted by: Josh Z. at January 17, 2006 10:21 PM

Broken- pets are totally descriminated against- while babies and small kids are allowed anywhere their parents go- why not the same rule for pets- also a question- when there is a sign outside of a store that says no pets- does that include pets in bags?- id really like to know-

Posted by: smartypants at January 18, 2006 12:52 PM

I ran into a rest area employee confused about pets signs. There was a sign "No pets in building" in front of the building; a "No pets in picnic area" in front of the picnic area; and a "Dog Run" sign in front of the euphemystically-named dog potty area. My leashed dog and I were hanging out near our car waiting for my wife to go on a "lady run," when this guy angrily insisted that my dog had to be in the dog run. I pointed out that the posted signs strongly implied that pets were allowed outside the dog run, but sensing that things may get out of hand, went sheepishly to the dog run.

Posted by: Chas at January 19, 2006 01:31 PM

It depends on how tall you are.

Posted by: rich at January 19, 2006 02:13 PM

Fellow pets of the world, the discrimination and oppression of the American Park Service has gone on for too long! There must be Ramifications! There must be Consequences! We will rise up and proclaim our rights by force if necessary! Let this be the dawn of a glorious new age of Equality! Viva la Cockatiel!

Posted by: Avian Liberation Front at January 19, 2006 02:19 PM

Let's take the Computer Networking Security way of doing things : No access always overrides access. So, that sign means, 'NO PETS'.

But if you change your pet's 'class_name' to 'animal', the sign doesn't apply to you.

Posted by: Trent Chernecki at January 20, 2006 03:51 AM

This is a fake, look @ the difference between the top signs and the bottom signs, and also look @ the screws in comparison to the other ones.

Posted by: kubedawg at February 21, 2006 02:18 PM

Its fake, the top ones have blue borders the bottom one doesnt. also the screws.

Posted by: Dephar at February 21, 2006 06:08 PM


P.S. I didn't know that they made signs that just said, "AND WALK IN DESIGNATED AREAS ONLY"

P.S.S. It didn't say you couldn't let your pet poop there.

P.S.S.S. What if your pet could fly, like if it was a bird or something?

Posted by: joey at April 22, 2006 04:17 PM

Comments on this entry are closed

Previous Posts: