NorCal dog owners howl over proposed leash rules

[The Straight Story]

NorCal dog owners howl over proposed leash rules

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A new federal proposal to tighten leash rules on parkland in and around San Francisco has many dog owners barking mad.

The 2,400-page plan released earlier this month by the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the country's largest urban national park, would mandate leashes in open spaces where dogs currently roam untethered.

Some popular dog-walking areas would be closed to canines entirely, partly to protect wildlife and native plants.

Park officials said they're trying to balance the often conflicting needs of the park's 16 million annual visitors.

But dog owners say the plan violates the spirit of the 39-year-old recreation area, which historically has been the nation's most pet-friendly national park.

http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=119035&catid=2

[Taitertots]

1. It is not like dogs bite over 4 million people a year

Oh wait, that is exactly what is happening. Selfish dog owners don't care that their animals are inherently dangerous to other people.

[northernlights]

2. take your hate-fueled ignorance someplace else

Dogs are not "inherently dangerous." Even badly trained dogs are not "inherently dangerous." Only mistreated, abused dogs, or very badly bred dogs, are possibly "inherently dangerous."

Selfish newcomers decide that those who have well-established, longterm "prior use" can be thrown out and lose their privileges.

I can understand restricting areas to protect plants and wildlife. And limiting some areas to leashed dogs only.

But for people who live in cities, parks are the only place their dogs can go offleash and do those horrible, "inherently dangerous" things dogs like to do, like play frisbee, chase balls and, if they're like my "inherently dangerous" dogs, lick people's hands.

Even the tiny village of Camden, Maine has a 4 acre off-leash field in the midst of its Merrysprings Park.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

3. Someone please call Cesar Millan

We need to calm the energy of the pack here at DU

[Taitertots]

6. Dogs are inherently dangerous

The facts prove that you are wrong.

4.5 Million people are attacked by dogs every year.
They are so dangerous that just two of them in the house multiplies the dog bite danger by five times.
http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/dog-bites/biteprevention.html

They are so inherently dangerous that they require life long training and oversight to prevent them from attacking people.

[JackintheGreen]

11. According to the same CDC

About 200,000 children are treated by emergency departments every year in playground accidents

PLAYGROUNDS ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS

2.8 million children go to the emergency room every year after falls (including playground stats)

So, erm, LEGS ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS

3 million people required emergency room treatment after automobile accidents

CARS ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS (well, duh...)

Of your 4.5 million dog bites a year, fewer than 1 in five requires medical attention. That's about a quarter of one percent of the population of the US.

What constitutes a "dog bite" by CDC standards? A full-on, jaw-locked snarl goes without saying, but what about those nips that are akin to the kinds of mild ankle twists and finger jams we get playing with our kids? Does this make kids inherently dangerous? Heck, with the amount of injuries kids get every year I would say, using your guidelines, that kids are dangerous. They are a danger to themselves, so we should really somehow try to control them. You, know, for their own good.

You are misusing statistics to exaggerate the danger posed to us by dogs. Statistics that neither you nor I understand how they were reached. We KNOW 800,000 people a year get bitten by dogs because they go to the doctor. How does the CDC know about the other 3.9 million bites. Some by police reports, surely. But is the rest estimation? And even if the numbers are incontrovertible, less than 1/4 of 1 percent of those incidents required medical attention. Football players have a higher rate of injury.

Any injury from any cause is regrettable, but this is an hysterical misuse of numbers.

[Taitertots]

12. Who thinks that cars are not inherently dangerous?

Why should we compound unavoidable dangers (falling) or beneficial dangers (cars) by adding dangerous animals to the mix. 4.5 Million people were bit, no matter how much you want to minimize the widespread damage. As if only 800,000 people needing medical attention is something you can cheer about.

"And even if the numbers are incontrovertible, less than 1/4 of 1 percent of those incidents required medical attention."
You are wrong. 885,000 out of 4,500,000 is roughly 20%. 20% of those incidents required medical attention.

"Football players have a higher rate of injury."
Football players consent to the dangers when they choose to play, and only people playing get hurt. Dogs create a danger that must be faced by people who can't choose to consent to it. It is the same with any other danger that people consent to on a regular basis (walking, letting your children on playground equipment...). It is a meaningless comparison.

"They are a danger to themselves, so we should really somehow try to control them. You, know, for their own good."
They do, Parents. "Placing a child at an unreasonable risk to the child's health or welfare by failure of the parent, legal guardian, or other person responsible for the child's health or welfare to intervene to eliminate that risk when that person is able to do so and has, or should have, knowledge of the risk." http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-124-5452_7119-21208--,00.html At least in Michigan they are legally obligated to.

[JackintheGreen]

17. We all drive them, putting others at risk every time we drive them.

"You are wrong. 885,000 out of 4,500,000 is roughly 20%. 20% of those incidents required medical attention."

Which I said earlier in my response. Obviously I mis-"spoke" here. The correct number is - and a reference to 1 in 5 of the total bites - is already in my response.

"They do, Parents. "Placing a child at an unreasonable risk to the child's health or welfare by failure of the parent, legal guardian, or other person responsible for the child's health or welfare to intervene to eliminate that risk when that person is able to do so and has, or should have, knowledge of the risk.""

Then please, by all mean explain this story:
http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/for-the-good-of-the-children/

It is anecdotal, but so are the 139 response. However, there are dozen (if not hundreds, by this time) of posts about well-intentioned people mis-using statistics to try to scare the rest of us into complying with their notions of what "safety" and "safe environments" should be. I'm not buying it. As you say:

"As if only 800,000 people needing medical attention is something you can cheer about."
Of course not. I addressed this, as well, in my response. Your suggestions otherwise is fatuous at best and disingenuous at worst. 800,000 - as I said - is about 1/4 of 1 percent of the entire population of the US. Rather than suggesting that I am cheering about 800,000 people being injured by a specific danger, please tell me why I need to have my panties in a bunch about something that is at best a nominal risk.

[Taitertots]

22. There are obvious societal benefits to having automobiles

Not to mention that the danger is mitigated with strict regulation and enforcement. There is certainly a danger to driving, it is reasonably mitigated, and it is outweighed by the obvious benefits. Dogs are certainly dangerous(4.5 Million attacks), and this danger is not outweighed by any societal benefits.


Your anecdote about spilled soup is meaningless to the discussion. Obviously doctors should both quickly treat people in pain WHILE protecting children from abusive parents. An unsourced, unsupported, opinion piece about an unnamed poorly run medical facility is meaningless. Parents are legally obligated to keep children away from unreasonable risks.


800,000 people is not a "nominal" risk. It is 8x the number of people who are shot every year. With the real number of dog attack victims being 4.5 Million, you are roughly 45 times more likely to get bit by a dog than you are to get shot.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/Gun_Death_and_Injury_Stat_Sheet_2007__2009_FINAL.pdf

[JackintheGreen]

23. We are not going to agree

I do appreciate your reliance on statistics. I welcome your citations. But I am still not going to agree with you that dogs pose an unacceptable risk to society. What you are engaged in smacks to me of fear-mongering. "You WILL be bitten by a dog!" you seem to be saying, without coming out and saying it. "4.5 million people were bitten last year (will YOU be next)" you seem to want to suggest. It's pandering and it ignores how small the numbers actually are in relation to other risks and to the broader population. I hope I am misunderstanding your position, but you are so vehement in it that it comes off in this way.

600,000 emergency room visits due to bicycle accidents
3.5 million children are treated for sports injuries
(University of Maryland medical center: http://www.umm.edu/non_trauma/stats.htm)

In 2009, 2.2 million seniors sought emergency care for falls. Nearly 600,000 were hospitalized. (http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Falls/adultfalls.html)

These are, to my mind, comparable (not equal, so don't go there) numbers and yet no one seems to question whether or not riding a bicycle, playing sports, or simply being old is an unacceptable risk.

You can play apples and oranges all you want (people CHOOSE to play sports, you said. And people CHOOSE to ride bicycles, I can imagine you saying. But somehow, in your mind, CARS are acceptable and a societal good, when in reality we have made for ourselves a society in which cars are necessary, but that isn't the only kind of society there can be.) But somewhere along the line you have decided that dogs are unacceptable while other dangers of comparable risk are A-OK.

Look, I agree with you that dog control laws are necessary. And irresponsible dog owners are a bane to society. But you paint with a broad brush and rely on number to sell your case. And I don't buy it because I got numbers, too.

[Taitertots]

24. You are slightly misunderstanding my position

I don't think that dogs create a risk that is "unacceptable" to society. I believe that dogs are inherently dangerous and this risk needs to be recognized and mitigated. This mitigation includes leash laws, like in the OP. I don't believe that dogs should be banned and I have no problem interacting with dogs. I recognize the dangers and take reasonable steps to mitigate them. Things like: Leashing dogs, Monitoring children when they are with animals, training dogs, making owners liable for damage, and putting down dogs that have bitten people.



We agree more than we disagree about this. I think unleashed dogs in parks is an unreasonable exposure to risk, you disagree. It is a matter of opinion and we will have to agree to disagree because we came to different interpretations of the situation.

[northernlights]

25. nobody forces dog-fearers into unleashed dog parks

And the unleashed dog parks where my sister and I have taken our dogs effectively rely on self-policing. Dog owners of badly socialized dogs learn very quickly that their dogs are not welcome off leash. Any sign of aggression and either the owner of aggressive dog leashes or everybody around them packs up their dogs and leaves. They get the message and don't come back. At my park, we've had as many as a dozen large dogs running free and playing happily and safely.

There's a difference between banning offleash dogs and restricting them to a certain area. As I wrote above, I can understanding restricting them in a large park to a particular portion of the park. Not everybody loves dogs and many people, such as you, obviously fear them.

But shutting down offleash altogether -- especially in an area where they were there first and have established precedent over a long period of time -- is patently unfair and in the end will backfire.

On the other hand, the park where I go has been so successfull that a village a short way up the coast decided to copy and opened their own offleash dog park.

Again -- afraid of dogs off-leash? Then don't go to that particular park. There are plenty of parks around that ban dogs altogether or only allow them to visit leashed. Afraid of dogs off leash? Pick another park. It really is quite simple.

[Taitertots]

31. This stops unleashed dogs from roaming normal parks, it doesn't require leashes in any dog park

If dog owners want to unleash their dogs in areas designated for dog use than that is good. This change has nothing to do with unleashed dogs in dog parks, and everything to do with unleashed dogs roaming large parks.

So if you think they should have a dog park area than you should advocate that. Don't advocate unleashed dogs roaming the entire parks system.

[flvegan]

19. (facepalm)

[XemaSab]

21. I have three dogs

and I KNOW which dog can't be trusted.

And no, she's not allowed where she could hurt a person or another dog.

[zonkers]

26. This dog lover and fosterer is with you 100%. Fuck these assholes w/ dogs off leash in

public parks. Selfish is too soft a word. Forget that these dogs shit all over the place while their owners look the other way, but it causes others to live in fear for themselves and their pets. And I love hearing the "don't worry, he doesn't bite" line. That doesn't do much for someone who is terrified of dogs or who doesn't want to trust the lives of their leashed pet based upon the blind assurance of a stranger. I wish my city enforced the leash laws more vigorously. Ironically, the victims are often the poor dogs who are owned by such selfish people. Fuck em. Fine em. Protect our parks, wildlife and landscaping. Either take your dog to an off leash park or obey the law!

[Brickbat]

4. This plan works for me. If the dogs are wrecking wildlife and plants, they shouldn't be there.

Sounds like it's time for a dog park!

[marmar]

5. "San Francisco has many dog owners barking mad."

The reporter for this story ought to be charged with felony corniness.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

7. Yeah, that quote's gonna bite him in the ass...

[BlueJazz]

32. Damn right and then you'll hear him Howl.

[Peregrine Took]

8. Put your dog on a leash, fer chrissake!

Then you won't have to be screaming "JASON!!" "GET OVER HERE JASON" "RIGHT NOW!!" "I MEAN IT!!" etc.

[Texasgal]

10. who names their dog

JASON?

GEEZ LOUIZE!!

:P

[Codeine]

16. I'm still mad my mom named me Jason.

Bad enough for a person, horrible for a dog! :rofl:

[sandyj999]

9. We have always had leash laws and dogs aren't allowed off leash in any park

and especially in any nature area. That is the reason we have dog parks. The dogs don't know the difference.

[AsahinaKimi]

13. Many San Francisco property owners

Have a NO PET policy in their renting agreement. Its hard to find a place anymore that will even allow pets. I was so glad Craigslist.com featured a way to search for places that would allow pets, and they were few.

[Codeine]

15. Pets destroy apartments.

When I was a kid I used to help my uncle clean up vacated apartments and condos. The bad ones were always caked with dogshit and soaked in catpiss. Tomcats would spray into heater vents and create the most godawful stenches.

Landlords and property managers like to keep out pets for a reason.

[Odin2005]

14. This is just pure idiocy by park officials.

[madinmaryland]

18. And then you have those "man-on-dog" folks like Rick Santorum.

:hide:

[XemaSab]

20. I am a biologist, and I have dogs

There should be seasons where off-leash dogs are welcome, and seasons where off-leash dogs are not allowed.

It's a simple solution.

[underseasurveyor]

27. I live and work with a biologist.

We agree.

So easy is the solution but then egos get in the way.

[KG]

28. in public, unenclosed spaces, dogs need to be on a leash.

i'm pretty goddam tired of unleashed dogs running up to me and my min-pin uninvited.

[seabeyond]

29. good. pisses me off have a dog run at me and have to yell to owner..... friendly???

owner acts like i have done something to them. i dare to question/ask, if i am about to be attacked.

and no.... i dont know dogs well enough to know if they are being aggressive or not. not my dog, not my responsibility

[Codeine]

30. City dogs belong on leashes when they aren't in your yard.

If you don't like it, don't get a dog, or move out to the country.