by Pete Alexander

On both sides of the Golden Gate, dog rights advocates and government bodies are embroiled in debates over issues ranging from off-leash space in national parklands to breed-specific legislation.

Here’s a roundup of some of the more controversial debates, with links to provide more information.

“Negotiated Rule-Making” in the GGNRA

What is going on in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) lately? We hear reports of conflict, controversy and general unhappiness about whether dogs should be on or off leash in the parks. In short, there is a controversy over the balance of pet owner’s recreation, public safety and protection of resources. So, we decided to check in by talking to some of the key people involved. Here is what we discovered.

I just need to be free

There is a body of people who believe that dogs should be allowed to be off-leash, generally, while recreating in designated areas of the GGNRA parks, most notably Ocean Beach. They do, however, make an exception to misbehaving dogs who act aggressively, chase protected species, etc.; these canines should either be on leash, or be asked to leave the park, they say. They cite a ruling by United States District Judge William Alsup in June of this year as supporting this. In fact, the decision indicates that the National Park Service (NPS) in closing areas to off-leash dogs in 2000 had some procedural problems, and left standing that dogs could still be off-leash in designated national park areas. This decision does not prevent the NPS from closing areas in the future.

According to Ocean Beach Dog, the 1979 Pet Policy allows for off-leash recreation in less than 1% of the GGNRA’s 75,398 acres of land and water, extending from Tomales Bay in Marin County to San Mateo County. Ocean Beach Dog and some other advocacy groups believe that as long as off-leash dogs in these areas do not harm or harass the wildlife, this is a reasonable use for the public lands.

Ocean Beach DOG’s web site states their mission: “To regain the usage of San Francisco’s Ocean Beach as an off-leash recreation area. This can only be accomplished by returning to the pre-1995 pet policy of the GGNRA.” Ocean Beach DOG’s Susan Valente says that the NPS does not manage recalcitrant dogs well, has not changed the signs to reflect the off-leash rule, and that there is no effective reporting procedure when a bad dog is spotted.

Can’t we all just get along?

Others believe that in areas of the park system that contain sensitive, rare and endangered species and plants, that dogs should be leashed by their owners at all times.

Says Brent Plater, representing the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), “Having a dog on an extended leash still allows the dog to run, yet allows the owner to keep it away from sensitive areas.” Brent says that if owners want their dogs off leash, there are many places in San Francisco designated for that, and that owners should take their dogs to those locations instead of plant and animal-sensitive areas.

Is negotiated rulemaking the solution?

In order to resolve this hot issue, the GGNRA is in the process of setting up what is called “negotiated rulemaking.” Basically, it involves people who are key players in a final plan to talk together about it. According to Chris Powell of the GGNRA, all potential key players, including Ocean Beach Dog and Center for Biological Diversity, were invited to participate in this process. Interior Secretary Gayle Norton is expected to officially name a committee by the beginning of 2006.

Back in the parks, Chris said that park rangers are to be cognizant that some parks, like Ocean Beach, are currently viewed as off -leash areas, but that they are to cite owners whose dogs are caught chasing protected birds and their habitats there. She said also that rangers will warn, cite or ask owners to remove aggressive dogs from public areas. institute an interim rule on an emergency basis to mandate that dogs be on leash in GGNRA parks to lessen the risk to the Western Snowy Plover during its nesting season, or at least until the committee has met and come up with new rules.

So, the fur is flying, and some heated language is there for the viewing on the Ocean Beach DOG web site, as well as in the CBD’s petition. In fact, the CBD purports that Ocean Beach DOG’s stand on the issue can be interpreted as support for the Bush Administration’s proposed rewrite of the National Park System’s preservation mandate, an assertion that angers many of the off-leash supporters. In a recent online posting about the issue, Matt Magana, one of the off-leash proponents, noted “[The CBD is] hoping to [cash] in on anti-Bush sentiment in the Bay Area to further [its] cause. Thankfully, we live in an area where people actually study the facts and make their own decisions. And, for clarification, I’m about as liberal as they come.”

Sonoma County: New Regulations Will Affect Dog Owners

Farther north, a revised Sonoma County animal regulation ordinance is currently in the proposal and review stages. How will the proposed changes affect dog owners and others?

First of all, it is all about dangerous dogs. The motivation for action at this time is arguably due to, in part, the recent spate of attacks by Pit Bull Terriers. The purpose of the revisions in policy, according to language in the ordinance is “to establish a program for the control of potentially dangerous and vicious animals.” Barry Evans, Chief Deputy of Sonoma County Animal Control, says the effort has been to come up with reasonable changes that enhance public safety, yet respect responsible pet ownership.

Although the revisions do not address just Pit Bulls, the new rules will not allow anyone, with some exceptions, to “own, harbor, or keep within the unincorporated area of this County, a pit bull over the age of four months, which has not been spayed or neutered.” In other words, it calls for mandatory spaying/neutering of any 4-plus month old Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, or American Staffordshire Terrier, or identifiable mixes of same.

Potentially dangerous or vicious?

If you have a dog that is aggressive at times toward other dogs or humans, you probably will want to know about some new definitions: “potentially dangerous” and “vicious.” What dogs will be tagged as “potentially dangerous” under these new rules? Let’s say you are walking your dog Fluffy one day on a public street. Fluffy charges a person, and that person dodges or runs to avoid being bitten. Well, that’s one count against Fluffy. If she does it again within three years, Fluffy is deemed “potentially dangerous.” What if Fluffy actually bit the person, though not severely. Again, “potentially dangerous.” Maybe Fluffy bit another dog while away from her house. Twice in three years? You guessed it.

The other definition is for truly aggressive dogs; they will be called “vicious.” Under the rules, your Rocky can be deemed vicious if he bites and causes severe injury (muscle tears, disfiguring lacerations, or requiring multiple sutures or cosmetic surgery) to a person, or kills that person. Another way to earn this moniker is to let Rocky continue with his behavior after you have been notified that he is a “potentially dangerous” dog.

Fluffy’s rules

Fluffy gets to be on a list maintained by the County. As her owner, you must be sure she is properly licensed and vaccinated. Oh, and you get to pay a “potentially dangerous animal” fee, as well. Fluffy has to live indoors or in a secure enclosure, and when out on a walk, Fluffy must be on a 6-foot or shorter leash attached to a “responsible” adult human. You will have to write the County within 2 working days if Fluffy dies, is sold, or removed from the County.

If you can demonstrate to animal regulation that Fluffy has changed her ways, all will be forgiven and Fluffy will be taken off the list. Or if Fluffy does nothing bad in three years after her designation, she will be taken off the list.

Some bad news for Rocky

Really aggressive dogs, designated as “vicious,” may face a shortened future. If the County determines that Rocky can’t be trusted, he may be humanely destroyed. But if there is hope, you will have to comply with some new rules. Rocky will have to be kept in a secure enclosure, and properly licensed and vaccinated. You will have to pay a “vicious animal” fee, too. Rocky cannot be kept in a home with minor children and must carry significant liability insurance. Also, the County will not allow you to own any other dog for three years, aggressive or not, if that might cause a threat to the public.

All potentially dangerous or vicious dogs will have to be spayed/neutered and micro chipped.

Now let’s be fair, ok?

There are times when a dog might attack or scare a person, but still not be designated as dangerous or vicious. You can’t blame Rocky if he attacks someone who is trespassing, or was being teased, abused or assaulted. And if Fluffy gets her canines into someone who was attacking her owner, she should not be tagged. These are a few of the instances included in the ordinance revisions.

When, oh when, these new rules?

The goal for implementation is the end of January, 2006. A public meeting was held on November 29, and the Animal Shelter is still taking comments via email and letter. Comments are being assessed; some have already resulted in changes and additions. The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee will meet in January, then forward the final recommended revised ordinance to the County Board of Supervisors for a decision.

If you want to read the ordinance, please go to www.theanimalshelter.org. If you would like to send your suggestions or comments, go to the bottom of the their home page and select “contact us” to send an email.