Update: Oreo, Dog Thrown Off Building, Was Euthanized
People Wait For Tomorrow's UWS Apple Store Opening
Emily and Sarah Kunstler, Filmmakers
Cheap Chicken Wing Deal Ruined by Gunslinging Teens
FIT Students Busted For Drug Dealing Get Probation
Woof, woof. City owners may get to let their dogs (continue to) run amok in designated parks during so-called "off-leash hours." The Board of Health voted unanimously yesterday to amend and codify the city's nebulous leash law in response to a Queens ruling against a civic group that was trying to shut down off-leash exercise hours for pups. In one corner, The Juniper Park Civic Association asserted that certain parks, by allowing leash-free hours from 9 pm until 9 am, were in conflict with a City health code that stipulates that all dogs must be kept on leashes at all times in city parks.
But in the other corner are dog lovers and Parks Department officials who feel that off-leash hours have made the parks safer by increasing the number of people spending time there early in the morning and later in the evenings. And some even argue that the hours have made dogs less dangerous over time, citing that since the policy has been in effect, the number of dog bites has plummeted from 40,000 a year in the 1960s to just under 4,000 in 2005.
Since the Queens lawsuit hinged on technicalities regarding the current leash laws, the health department had a real impetus to standardize it. Effective immediately, it is up to individual parks to establish rules on pets and leash laws. But all's not settled yet: the Parks Department is to put forward its own proposal outlining the regulations which will be finalized after 30 days of public comment. So, it looks like the lazy dog days of summer are still far off. Oh, and just in case you see an unleashed dog coming at you later today, here's the DOH's info page on rabies.
There have been interesting comments in our various posts about off-leash hours, but how do you feel now that the Health Department is paving the way to making them possible?
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Big mistake! If i was bit by a dog, I would sooooo sue the parks department and the city. They have already admiited to having considered and approved off leash dogs (Leaving it up to individual parks is just as good (leagaly) as the city blessing it). I'm suprised Bloomberg, a business man, does not see the culpability and exposure the city is opeining itself up to.
I think the Health Dept. made the right decision. I think off-leash opponents get all worked up because they don't realize how little time parks allow off-leash. It's only 9 pm to 9 am, which means the hours you would encounter an off-leash dog in the park are pretty limited.
I don't think the issue is dog bites: it's at the other end of the animal. Who needs steaming lumps of used Alpo all over the park?
I know that a lot of people don't scoop anyway, but now even people who do will find it more difficult. Who knows what l'il Fluffikins is doing in those bushes?
I have a dog but I have to disagree. The solution should be to create more dog runs.
I think that people have the right to use the park from 9pm to 9am without having to worry about off-leash dogs.
People who hate dogs are like people who hate children.
I love this idea! I'll be letting my pitbull, who weighs a good 110 pounds, has huge jaws and incredible mandibular strength wander all over your neighborhood park from 9pm to 9am everyday! Particularly if it's McCarren Park!
Did I mention that he used to be a fighting dog and has some behavior control problems?
F*cking yuppies need to go home.With their stupid dogs.
but please, more tough guy douchebags with their status symbol pit bulls.
^Just hold on....we're coming for ya! And your stupid f*cking accessory dog.
Bruiser here's very hungry!Sic 'em, Bruiser!
your dog isn't an accessory for your tiny weewee, infamous?
If someone can't control their dog, and it bites someone, the owner is responsible, not the city. Yes, that owner may be a jerk, but that's not the fault of the city.
If I get hit by a car, do I sue the city for allowing cars on the streets?
The revised off-leash regulations are a pretty reasonable compromise. The people against the rule are the just the kind of people who think government should protect them from anything and everything they don't like.
I don't like screaming kids, but I don't sue the city to ban them from public spaces.
While more dog parks would be ideal. There simply is not enough money. Also people who oppose off-leash usually oppose dog parks. They do not think it is a legitimate use of park space. The Off-Leash compromise has been a successful one for 20 years.
As a dog owner who does take advantage of the off-leash courtesy, I would ask anyone who came to the park with an aggressive or out of control dog to leash up. Not all dogs should be off leash and as a person I do not want to be exposed or expose others to a dangerous dog.
Regarding picking up the waste, I have been involved in 4 park clean ups over the last 7 months and have cleaned up only two piles of poop, compared to huge amounts of garbage left by humans. Our policy has been if you see someone not picking up offer a bag if they ignore you just pick it up without being confrontational. Peer pressure is eventually a very effective method.Also if we see poop on the ground we pick it up regardless of what dog left it behind.
Gothamist, please curb your foolish writing. See the All Caps below for some further clarity and sanity... do your readers a favor, and present the issue accurately.
Woof, woof. City owners may get to let their dogs (continue to) run amok (AMOK? HOW ABOUT EXERCISE, PLAY FETCH, AND SOCIALIZE WITH THEIR CANINE FRIENDS) in designated parks during so-called "off-leash hours." (THIS IS ONLY DESIGNATED SPOTS, AND ONLY FROM 9 PM UNTIL PARKS CLOSE, AND WHEN THEY RE-OPEN TO 9 AM). The Board of Health voted unanimously yesterday to amend and codify the city's nebulous leash law in response (NOT IN RESPONSE, THE TIMING JUST FELL THAT WAY. THE BOH PROCESS WAS ALREADY IN THE WORKS BEFORE A JUDGE RULED) to a Queens ruling against a civic group that was trying to shut down off-leash exercise hours for pups. In one corner, The Juniper Park Civic Association asserted that certain parks, by allowing leash-free hours from 9 pm until 9 am, were in conflict with a City health code that stipulates that all dogs must be kept on leashes at all times in city parks.
But in the other corner are dog lovers and Parks Department officials who feel that off-leash hours have made the parks safer by increasing the number of people spending time there early in the morning and later in the evenings. (AND, WHAT ABOUT THE PARKS REGS 1-04 THAT SAY THE PARKS COMMISSIONER CAN ALLOW DOGS OFF-LEASH? OR 20 YEARS OF PRACTICE?) And some even argue that the hours have made dogs less dangerous over time, citing that since the policy has been in effect, the number of dog bites has plummeted from 40,000 a year in the 1960s to just under 4,000 in 2005. (IN FACT, OF 1.4 MILLION CITY DOGS, THERE WERE 55 DOG BITES IN CITY PARKS IN 2006, AND THEY WERE ROUGHLY SPLIT BETWEEN DOGS ON-LEASH AND OFF-LEASH. THESE BITES REPRESENT A MERE 1.6% OF ALL CITY DOG BITES).
Since the Queens lawsuit hinged on technicalities regarding the current leash laws (ARE TECHNICALITIES WHAT WE CALL SOMETHING WHEN WE DON'T UNDERSTAND? THE JPCA SAID THE PARKS COMMISH HAS TO ENFORCE THE HEALTH CODE. THE JUDGE SAID NO, JPCA IS WRONG. THE PARKS COMMISH HAS THE POWER TO ALLOW DOGS OFF-LEASH IN CITY PARKS), the health department had a real impetus to standardize it (THEY DIDN'T STANDARDIZE. THEY CLARIFIED THEIR OWN REGS, WHICH PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT THE PARKS COMMISSIONER HAS DISCRETIONARY POWER TO ENFORCE THE HEALTH REGS. YESTERDAY'S VOTE SAID, IN AN EXPRESSLY CLEAR FASHION, YES PARKS COMMISH CAN ALLOW DOGS OFF-LEASH, AND THE BOH STATED THAT THEY WANTED TO PROMOTE LICENSING, VACCINATION AND AWARENESS OF LIMITED TIMES AND LOCATIONS). Effective immediately (WRONG! 30 DAYS FROM YESTERDAY), it is up to individual parks (WRONG! THE BOH RULES JUST PROMOTE FURTHER LICENSING, VACCINATION AND AWARENESS RE: OFF-LEASH. THIS IS CITYWIDE) to establish rules on pets and leash laws. But all's not settled yet: the Parks Department is to put forward its own proposal outlining the regulations which will be finalized after 30 days of public comment (WRONG! THE PARKS DEP'T WILL RELEASE THEIR OWN PROPOSALS FOR AMENDING THEIR OWN REGULATIONS. THEN, THEY WILL HAVE 30 DAYS OF PUBLIC COMMENT, AND A PUBLIC HEARING. AFTER THAT, IT WILL BE PUT TO A VOTE, AND IF PASSED, IT WILL TAKE EFFECT 30 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE). So, it looks like the lazy dog days of summer are still far off. (WHAT? THIS WHOLE THING WILL BE WRAPPED UP IN ABOUT 90 DAYS). Oh, and just in case you see an unleashed dog coming at you later today, here's the DOH's info page on rabies. (THIS IS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY, AND FOOLISH. WHY NOT READ THE BOH STATEMENT ON THE POLICY TO ACTUALLY LEARN THAT PARK PATRONS HAVE BEEN SAFER BECAUSE OF THE 20 YEARS OF SUCCESS PROVIDED BY THE LIMITED OFF-LEASH POLICY. HTTP://WWW.NYC.GOV/HTML/DOH/HTML/PR2006/PR112-06.SHTML, OR EVEN THEIR STATEMENTS IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS:
HTTP://WWW.NYC.GOV/HTML/DOH/DOWNLOADS/PDF/VET/VET-DOGLICENSE-COMMENTS-RESPONSE.PDF.
Yesterday's vote just strengthens and clarifies the existing 20 year policy. Presenting this to your readers accurately helps raise the level of discourse in the City, and would probably lead to more intelligent commentary...
"We have devised a rule that balances our mandate to protect the public’s health and safety with the need for a formal off-leash policy for dogs in City parks."
The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene believes that the benefits of modifying Article 161.05 of the Health Code outweigh the risks. Further, the proposed amendment has been de facto in effect in Department of Parks and Recreation parks for over 20 years.
Information reported to the DOHMH on dog bites show 93 (2.3 %) of 4,082 dog bites were reported in parks in 2004 and that 86 (2.2%) of 3,956 dog bites were reported in parks in 2005. Current reported data for the period from January thru September 2006 show that of 2,991 bites 55 (1.5%) occurred in parks.
The number of reported dog bites to humans has decreased in the City annually since 1993. Animal bites are reportable under Health Code Section 11.03. The Department is in the process of updating its animal bite reporting program. In addition to accepting reports by telephone, mail and fax, the Department is now accepting on-line reports through the Department’s Universal Reporting Form.
ENFORCEMENT: Parks, however, does explicitly prohibit dog owners from allowing their animals to be out of control in any park, and an owner allowing his or her dog to attack another dog would be a clear example of an animal being out of control regardless of whether it was leashed or unleashed.
PEP OFFICERS: Park Enforcement Patrol (PEP) Officers may issue violations to owners who are unable to control their dogs—whether or not such dogs are leashed—regardless of the time of day.
SUMMONSES: Parks has issued almost ten thousand (10,000) summonses since 2002 for unleashed/out of control dogs. Moreover, a leash law requirement does not guarantee that one will not encounter unleashed dogs in City parks.
CLARITY LEADS TO COMPLIANCE: Clearer rules with formal off-leash opportunities should foster more compliance, rather than less, concerning the proper control of dogs by their owners.
NO INCREASE IN LIABILITY: We have considered concerns that the adoption of the proposed amendment might result in City liability. After consultation with the Law Department, we have concluded that the proposed amendment will not result in an increased risk of liability, because it is anticipated that the modifications in Article 161.05 of the Health Code will allow the Department of Parks and Recreation to better define and regulate areas of the parks that will allow dogs off leash. Parks indicates that selected areas in only approximately 300 of the total of 1,833 parks will allow dogs off leash.
Further, codified rules will allow better enforcement by PEP and other entities such as the New York City Police Department.
Department of Parks and Recreation has significant experience dealing with issues related to dog owners and the presence of domestic and wild animals in the City’s parks and has found this policy has increased positive uses of parks at less trafficked hours, while not otherwise compromising the safety of other visitors to parks or unduly impacting the natural flora and fauna.
Section 1-04(i) of Parks’ rules prohibits dogs from certain portions of parks, whether leashed or unleashed, at all times, e.g. (1) playgrounds, (2) zoos, (3) beaches, (4) bathing facilities, and (5) ballfields.
VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF NYC SUPPORTS THE LIMITED OFF-LEASH POLICY, and THE BOH AMENDMENTS:
The Veterinary Medical Association of New York City stated that “This interaction [allowing dog to be off leash] would reduce animal anxiety and reduce the propensity for animals to injure people.”
WHAT ABOUT POOP? Parks currently requires dog owners to clean up after their pets. Specifically, Section 1-04(j)(1) of Parks’ rules states that “[n]o person shall allow any dog in his custody or control to discharge any fecal matter in any park unless he promptly removes and disposes of same…”.
NO PROBLEM WITH POOP AND OFF-LEASH: Indeed, in over twenty years of experience with the “courtesy hours” policy of informally allowing off-leash opportunities in certain parks, there does not appear to be any serious problem regarding the accumulation of dog waste in City parks attributable to unleashed dogs.
Moreover, Parks believes that clearer rules formally allowing off-leash opportunities for dogs, with certain restrictions, will tend to foster greater, rather than less, respect for other Parks rules, including the rules regarding animal waste removal.
Further, since Parks has also recently expanded its PEP Officers ranks, the enforcement potential to address such violations will be much greater.
ENFORCEMENT: Parks has recently hired additional permanent PEP Officers, resulting in a net increase of one hundred and sixty-three (163) new Officers since 2004 and Parks has issued almost ten thousand (10,000) summonses since 2002 for unleashed/out of control dogs.
TWENTY YEARS OF SUCCESS: Lastly, courtesy hours have been in place for the last twenty (20) years. In fact, leash requirements cannot and do not prevent all incidents of dogs attacking other dogs or people, and animal behavior experts have concluded that there is evidence to suggest that well exercised and socialized dogs are less likely to bite other dogs or people.
With only 44 dog runs in the City, limited off-leash hours and designated park locations provide a reasonable accomodation for all park users - both dog owners and non dog owners.
Guess somebody's prescription ran out. Dude, presenting every factoid known about dogs off leashes isn't advancing an argument or adding to the discussion.
NO ADDITIONAL RISK WITH CHANGES TO HEALTH CODE:
After review of the public comments, and for the same reasons stated in the original Statement of Basis and Purpose, and because the off leash policy has been in effect for approximately 20 years, the Department has no reason to believe that there will be any increased risk to public health as a result of the Health Code change at this time.
www.NYCoffleash.com
I've been bitten by a dog that was off-leash, and I become very anxious when I see owners just carrying the leash while their dog runs the street in front of them. Sometimes I cannot avoid being in a public park before 9 (group runs, etc.) so I keep my eye out for unleashed dogs.
I don't think it's safe. I'd like to see more and larger dog runs. When a person chooses to buy a dog as a companion, it's that person's responsibility to determine if they can give the dog all it needs to be happy and healthy. However, that person does not have the right to infringe on his fellow man's safety and sense of security. If you want to have a dog and you want him to run free, use a dog run or move somewhere with a yard. I know the idea of doing something you don't like (or not doing every little thing you want to do) just because you are a member of a society is abhorrent to most Americans, but remember: It's not all about you.
I agree with Alexia. My dog and I were attacked several times by an off-leash dog (always the same one) in a city park. The park is huge, and the owner, who always let his uncontrolled German Shepard run free, was never caught by the few rangers or park police who patrol it.
My sister lived in Boulder, CO, for years, and told me about the off-leash policy there. They have large open spaces which allow for off-leash dogs, but they must be under voice control. Animal control officers would regularly patrol the area and ask people which dog was theirs, and then say, "okay, call him." If the dog didn't come running, the owner would get a citation. If NYC had that kind of enforcement, then I could get behind the off-leash hours.
Isn't that a cute picture of the kid?
Also agree with Alexia. We had dogs growing up when I was a kid, and I like dogs a lot, but I *don't* like the variables involved when an unleashed canine comes screaming up towards me, because I can't possibly know anything about its temperament, nor its intent. And I've decided I should be allowed to establish a safety zone around me, past which a charging dog is eligible to catch my best Garo Yepremian aimed right at its choppers or ribcage. I'm not getting my ass bitten because of someone *else's* "right" to keep a pet in a 200 sq. foot studio.
This was a done deal. Some very privileged and powerful people (including Parks Dept head honchos) want to continue using Prospect Park and Central Park as their personal dog toilets. Their precious child-substitute dogs are much more important to the powers that be than the less wealthy folks who just want to use the park without fear and anxiety.
I like the Boulder CO enforcement idea. Testing dogs on recall would rapidly empty Prospect Park on a typical Saturday morning before 9 am.
Number [29]. My Dear BlogBoy, I can recognize your nasty writing stlye anywhere, even under a new assumed handle. Keep up your vitrol, it makes you seem slightly more noble in defeat than you actually are.
I suppose the 13,000+ public comments to the Health Board were from all those very privledged and powerful people you speak of. And the paultry 202 public comments against off-leash policy were from the real voice of the people. Too bad all those people you claim to say don't want off-leash in the park are so underprivledged and unpowerful that they couldn't afford to write a letter or email to the Health Board during the public comment period. Puleeze.
first of all, what normal person would be wandering around the park after 9pm? the time was set for dog owners because they figured most NORMAL people would NOT be in a park after dark, unless you are up to no good. and the same with people who go to the parks at 6am, shouldn't you be getting ready for work? not wandering around the park, unless you exercise in the morning. in which case you are running anyways, if a dog does chase you, the possibility of that is slim, just keep running faster. LoL
i also think it should be the responsibility of the owners to know whether or not their dog is aggressive, i mean yes a pit bull or a german shepard can be intimidating but if they are well trained and well socialized, aggressiveness would not occur. therefore the owners need to be responsible enough to know that their dogs cannot be off leash if they have a tendency to be aggressive.
dont hate the dog... hate the stupid, selfish dog owners
Look.
Here is what this WHOLE issue was about:
the 5 or 6 curmudgeonly "Leaders" (I use that term VERY loosely) of the JPCA wanting TOTAL control over their park.
They had benches removed years back to keep out the immigrant soccer players
Now, they want the dogs out.
Why?
CONTROL and Proprty Values.
The JPCA and Prospect Park 'Advocate' (another term used VERY Loosely) have done nothing but LIE time and time again. They MAY have set a record:
1. Their ONleash petition was a fraud committed against the people of NYC. By who? Not the off leash advocates, as they FALSELY claim, but these 'leaders' in JPCA and the Prospect Park Advocate. Why haven't they done an investigation to see WHO actually committed the fraud by contacting ipetition.com. The webpage administrators can give them the IP of where these fraudulent downloads came from. Why, you ask? Because it'd be self incriminating. Simple as that.
2. On the JPCA webpage, I think the 'p' stands for 'Propaganda', they claim that Anti-Off Leash folks were booed and hissed by Pro Off leash groups. BULL! The only booing in that room was from some crazy olde lady who was anti-off leash. She was right in front of me. The Off Leash Advocates were ABSOLUTELY courteous. The media was there, they would totally disagree with JPCA's comments on our decorum. What a COMPLETE joke JPCA is.
3. The JPCA continues to embellish stories of dog 'incidents' in their park. They lie to get attention, they exaggerate to get people to read their webpage, what is scary is that SOME people believe them. Yellow (urine yellow) Journalism @ it's worst.
4. The JPCA wasted $10K fighting this losing cause. This could have been spent building a fenced in dog run in the park. No, that'd be too easy for these genuises. It's THEIR way or the highway.
Look, we all know the truth, off leash works, despite what this bunch of insane people WANT you to believe.
A NYS judge decided in our favor
The NYC Health Dept decided in our favor
The Parks Dept decided in our favor
Get over it, move on.
Get a hobby. Volunteer @ the local animal shelter.
Amazing that we ALL had to waste so much time on this.
Woof