Hey - I agree with the ban the dogs guy. Here's a great analogy - 17,000 kids are sent to the emergency room every year due to school bus accidents!!!

CLEARLY, the ONLY solution is to ban the school bus!!! Even though there are 23.5 million kids on buses nationwide each year who don't get hurt, banning the bus is the ONLY sensible thing to do.

ANYTHING else is INSANE. I mean, seatbelt use, more vigilant monitors and safety education just should not be on the table. BAN THE BUS NOW!!!

You know, people parallel park their cars in my neighborhood, and I hate that, especially the foreign cars. My neighborhood is the best place in the City - pretty homogeneous (geneous, not sexual mind you). I like things to remain the same - or at least as I remember them. All this talk of dogs gets me angry b/c regardless of the statistics, regardless of the clear and overwhelming evidence, I just want to pound the desk and scream. I'm going to hold my breath until we have a safe City - safe from demogoguery and theatrics! I won't rest until all the dogs are either impounded, exported, or teeth free. After all, they are property, just like cars. And, don't get me started on those foreign imports.

- Bobby Holdon, Maspeth

Michael,

No one ever said that all dogs are Lassie and that they can tell you when Timmy fell in the well. However, having dog owners present and vigilent is a crime deterrent. No slight to the great work done by the NYPD, but have you ever been on a subway where there is an ad that reads: "If you see something, say something." ?

The same thing is true with parks and dog-owners. While you are probably sleeping, they are up at 6 am, and outside.

They congregate in certain designated areas of parks. Like most, they have cell phones. They are vigilant of their dogs, and their surroundings. Multiply that by the number of dogs that are out and about in the morning in the different parks until 9 am. Do it again late at night (9 to 11 pm).

Vigilance. Presence. These are things that make bad actors go elsewhere. It's called deterrence. It works. As Casey Stengel once said, "you could look it up." Not surprisingly, take a look at the crime stats for City Parks during the time period of the off-leash policy. Crime dips. Coincidence or deterrence?

Wasn't Halloween last week? Isn't it time to put away the scary rhetoric and tricks?

I mean, let's face reality: the Health Code says dogs have to be restrained, which MAY be enforced by the Parks Department. The Parks Code says that the Parks Commissioner can allow dogs to be permitted off-leash. And, the City Charter says that Parks rules and regs have the full force of law, Citywide. So, the off-leash hours are legitimate, legal, and have been successful for 20 years.

What's going on now is that a small, cantankerous, and obviously angry bunch is kicking and screaming and holding their breath. Maybe they'll try to disenfranchise people next, since their tactics seem to come from the close-minded past.

Meanwhile, the Health Dep't is rightfully acknowledging that Parks has the authority to allow dogs off leash.

Do you seriously think both Parks and Health would endanger New Yorkers? Of course not.

This is a smart policy that is good for all New Yorkers.

This is a limited hours policy - 9 pm until parks close, and when they open again until 9 Am. Only in designated places. Most folks who use parks use them during the day - after the early morning, and not during the late evening.

Most dog owners pick up after their pooches. If they don't, they get yelled at by other dog owners. Know why? Because no one wants to step in poop.

If you want to ride your bike, if you want to play softball, if you want to go jogging, you use the park.

If you own a dog, and you want to exercise your dog and get some fresh air yourself, you bring them to a park. You play fetch with them. You let them interact with other dogs, so that they are socialized, and have friends, and aren't aggressive.

That's common sense. That's the reasonable accomodation that the Parks Commissioner, and the Mayor have allowed. That's what has worked for 20 years - limited times, designated spots.

Dog owners are people who use parks just like everyone else. They don't like stepping in poop. Which reminds me - why doesn't the JCPA pick up the rather (sounds like spitty) tab they've left the City to step in when JCPA sued the City?

Readers should be alerted to a major inaccuracy in the posting number 28 from Bob of Middle Village. (Bob of Middle Village is actually the president of the Juniper Park Civic Assocation, which is the small private group of unelected individuals who claim to speak for Middle Village and which brought the specious lawsuit against the City attempting to take down the successful 20-year Offleash Hours policy).

The JPCA president claims that for the past 20 years, three consecutive Parks Commissioners have willfully been breaking the law by allowing the Offleash Hours policy.

This is flatly untrue as the City Charter and the Parks Code specifically provides that the Parks Commisioner has discretion over dogs (and other animals such as horses) off lead in the Parks.

The Offleash Hours policy has been and continues to be perfectly legal. In fact, just this morning thousands of New Yorkers availed them of the policy in many NYC parks that do not have a dog run, including Juniper Valley Park. The recent Health Board amendment hearings were brought to even further clarify the Park Commissioner's power to avoid frivolous lawsuits in the future like the one instigated by Bob.

In true Karl Rovian fashion, Bob thinks that if he repeats his misinformation enough times and in enough forums, people will start to believe him.

For those with the time and inclination to learn more about the legality of Offleash Hours, you can view a brief synopsis of the relevant laws/regulations at NYCoffleash.com. For those wishing to go into further detail, you can read a full Memorandum of Law.

The question for the Board of Health is: Should dogs be permitted to run without leash, or must the current law - ALL dogs, ALL public places, ALL hours controlled on a leash no greater than 6 feet in length by a person responsible for that control be vigorously enforced? Simple; leash or unleash the dogs. So, why is there any discussion of dog runs? That's an entirely separate issue. So, answer: Is it good or not good for an unleashed dog to be loose in a New York City (Public) Park? Why? What about coyotes?

To all of you dog owners: Keep your dogs on a leash! I don't care how well trained it is, I don't care if it's docile as a baby . I don't want your dog walking up to me smelling me, Or what I'm carrying . I don't like dogs and never have . So keep them monsters holstered !!!!

In this backwards city of ours, it's no surprise that dogs take priority over people. I guess nobody walks, runs, bikes, strolls, or just sits in a park between the hours 9pm and 9am any more. The dog advocates say off-leash hours are good for dogs and dog owners. But what about the rest of us? I don't have a problem with the dogs - it's the owners, who are all too often heard saying, "Gee - he never did that before!"

Elyse: Your comment reflects a willingness to compromise. But, why should taxpayers support a private, luxurious, hobby? There are the costs of land, fencing, maintaining, water supply, disinfection, security, patrolling, etc.

Cat owners do not expect tax paid support for their hobby. Neither do canary, nor goldfish owners, or the owners of so many other pets. Why do dog owners believe they are entitled to subsidies, like farmers? At least farmers produce food that we all need (even the dogs). What do dogs or dog owners produce?

Dog owners have to come to realize that it was their own choice to purchase a near-horse-sized creature that requires enormous amounts of food and exercise and attention. No one forced the decision on them.

As "Mac" said, earlier today: If a dog owner has no yard for the large dog, why did he/she choose a large dog? So that taxpayers would put the dog and owner on to welfare?

Someone else replied that "cooping" a large dog prevents socialization, la de da da ...

What? Having a dog in a backyard prohibits the dog owner from inviting other dog owners over to the yard for that required socialization?

Saying the word "coop" doesn't make the yard a coop.

Once again, why should taxpayers be required to subsidize a poor choice of dog breed/size?

Name calling, too. Classy.

Apparently J. stands for jerk off.

He's been owned post after post. You know he has no come back.

When I go into the park, I want to be relaxed. If dogs are off leash they inevitably are agressive,

even jumping on me. That is very unnerving!

I have friends that won't go into the park because they are afraid of dogs running all over the park. The only possibility is a fenced in area just for dogs and their owners

J: That's surrender. Apparently, you cannot answer a straighforward question.

Will someone else please step up to the plate and try?

Talk about the elderly, the invalids in wheelchairs, on crutches, using canes. Sould these taxpayers be permitted to use the park whenever they choose?

Talk about infants crawling or just learning to walk. Talk about young children who want to run without being attacked by any dog. Talk about a family who want to eat a snack without a strange dog mooching or aggressively trying to get the food.

Talk about how you, as an off-leash advocate, rank dogs vs. people. Talk about the dogs that pay taxes.

Talk about how someone can distinguish a pleasant, harmless dog from a dog that will unleash (how about that word?) an attack because of a perfume, or use of a cane, or because a person limps?

No emotion. No sarcasm. No insults. No avoidance.

Again, histrionics. No wonder you have difficulty finding someone willing to engage you in conversation.

J: Do you have literacy problems? Where did my comment say: "hyperbolic "packs of trained killer dogs roaming the streets" "?

Apparently your guilt regarding the mention of rotweillers and pit bulls had you conclude that I wrote those words. It was just your imagination, J.

How does any dog know the specific location in any park, when the same "trained killer dog, roaming the streets" fails to observe boundaries?

Can you explain why churches, courthouses, business places, subways, etc. prohibit dogs, on or off leash? Forget about future decisions. Why not currently?

Your comment concludes with the phrase: "To answer your question ..." and then proceeds to not answer the question.

The question is straightforward. Is there a straightforward answer? One without imagination added.

Bob, it's always best to disengage the sarcasm when requesting sarcasm-free discussion. Again, resorting to the hyperbolic "packs of trained killer dogs roaming the streets" nonsense ignores all reality.

We are talking about specific parks that have specific areas and specific, non-peak times during which dogs are allowed to spend supervised time off their leashes.

To answer your question, "streets, sidewalks, courtrooms, churches, etc." are not valid controlled environments with defined boundaries and low-trafficked areas. Although if any church decides on its own to allow dogs to roam free within, that's its decision.

Can at least one off-leash advocate write a unemotional, insult-free explanation for why large dogs should be off-leash in parks but not on streets, sidewalks, courtrooms, churches, etc?

If you are tempted to be sarcastic, bite your fingertips, count to ten, and, as the great Hillary Clinton always says: "Take a deep breath"; then explain.

Explain why a rotweiller charging at a 4-year old or an elderly person, or, someone in a wheelchair is a good thing. Explain why a pit bull's ripping at a small dog is "required exercise". Or, you can assert that these incidents never occur. Or, you can explain that for the very few incidents of dog attacks, the most important result is that the dog was exercising or socializing. Those are good things, and injuries to people are the price they must pay so that dogs have a "quality of life".

In any event, explain. Unemotionally.

Cool, the ridiculous reactionaries have gathered to fling their hyperbole about! I liked it much better when these folks stuck to writing angry letters to cereal companies.

All my Frosted Mini-Wheats arrived upside-down! I wanna refund!

I mean, seriously: "The stench of all that urine on the grass of our public spaces is sickening?" Yeah, after leaving the subway for fragrance-free Prospect Park, that's the first thought that comes to my mind.

I WAS FORCED (FORCED!) TO INTERACT WITH UNLEASHED DOGS! SOMEONE, PLEASE, SAVE ME!

So many of the premises maintained by the defenders of the off-leash policy are absurd. The first being that the presence of dogs and their owners have reduced crime. I won't argue for or against that claim, but I will say that that is the job of law enforcement. If the NYPD and PEP have allowed crime to rise in our parks, we should demand that they do their jobs more effectively.

The second is the claim that allowing dogs to roam off-leash doesn't harm anyone and that it is somehow a public good. The question isn't whether or not doggy learns to socialize better, or whether or not he's really good-natured and not likely to bite anyone. This is a public health issue. It is a fact that dog waste is a potential source of disease. And even if this were not the case, the stench of all that urine on the grass of our public spaces on a hot afternoon is sickening. I can't think of another country besides the United States that would even think of holding public hearings on health issues. Well, this is the country that dragged its' feet getting condoms and syringes out to people during the early years of the AIDS epidemic, and still bickers about other health issues like this off-leash nightmare. Health issues should be decided by the Department of Health, not by elected officials or referendum.

I was never a supporter of the idea of multiple-use parks. It's become almost impossible to find a quiet spot in our cities. Whatever became of Olmstead's original hope of the parks as urban oases? So you see, I am not just picking on the poor dogs (and it really does break my heart to think of criminally thoughtless owners keeping large dogs in small apartments), but all mob activities in our parks. It's unfortunate that we can't escape the tendency for New Yorkers to crowd together even in our pubilc spaces.

Michael

As a dog owner for the last 8 years, I am vehemently opposed to the informal off leash policy as practiced today in Prospect Park and other New York City parks without fenced dog runs. No one should have to give up their right to traverse a public recreational green space without being harassed, charged, sniffed, intimidated, or otherwise forced to interact with unleashed dogs. These dog owners truly believe that I should embrace their unleashed dogs with open arms as the price of entering a public park, or else, stay out of the park during their informal off leash hours, which happen to include the nicest times of day. This is simply wrong.

Today, I cannot take an exercise walk through Prospect Park, in the morning or the evening, on my way to the subway to or home from work, without being forced to interact with unleashed dogs. Many people find off leash dogs to be frightening, for good reason. These parks were created to be urban refuges for humans. They were not intended to be dog parks. My human need for exercise and recreation ought to take priority over a dog's. I should be able to take a walk for the betterment of my health without being stressed by wariness at the presence of these uncontrolled dogs or the conflicts with their arrogant owners.

People have forgotten that dogs are animals. Animals react on instinct. Animals bite and kill other animals. People can be hurt protecting their own animals from attacks. Leashed dogs can be harassed by off leash dogs. And yes, animals can attack people without apparent provocation. It's time to look beyond the cutesy-poo, emotionalistic doggies-run-free nonsense and take a clear eyed, level headed look at the impact that the presence of unleashed dogs has imposed on other people who use, or who would like to use, New York City parks.