Final Off-Leash Law Hearing Off the Chain

BACKGROUND: A small Queens-based group misguidedly sued NYC about the City’s off-leash policy. Judge Kelly ruled on 11/30/06 that the Parks Commissioner has the authority to permit dogs off-leash in City parks, and that off-leash opponents “exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of the ‘laws’ at issue.” He also called upon Parks and Health to clarify their own regulations.

BOARD OF HEALTH: On 12/5/06, the Board of Health (BOH) voted to amend Article 161.05 of the Health Code, which clarified and codifies the limited off-leash policy. The changes call for dog-owners to provide proof of their dog’s current rabies vaccination on their dog’s collar. The BOH also calls on the Parks Dep’t to adopt rules promoting awareness of dog vaccination and licensure requirements, and the specific locations where, and limited times when, dogs may be off-leash. Lastly, in the event that a large outbreak of rabies or a spike in dog related bites occurs, the Health Dep’t can limit or eliminate off-leash activity in such an area.

PARKS AMENDMENTS: The Parks’ proposed amendments to Sections 1-04 (i) and 1-05(s)(3) of Title 56 of the RCNY expressly codify times (9 pm until parks close / when they re-open until 9 am) and places (never in a playground, zoo, bathing facility, beach, pool, bridle path, fountain, ballfield, baseketball or tennis court, or other prohibited areas) where dogs are permitted off-leash, and as a condition to being off-leash, state that dogs must wear NYC license and rabies vaccination tags. Moreover, the off-leash dogs must not disturb, harass, or injure any park patron, animal, or flora. Lastly, dogs must be leashed up upon direction by the NYPD, DOHMH, or Parks Enforcement Patrol Officers.

NYCDOG POSITION: The amendments are good, but they don’t go far enough. NYCdog would like clearer and more precise language that will both promote greater compliance and responsible dog ownership, and enable everyone to enjoy parks. For more info: www.nycoffleash.com.

BITES ARE DOWN DRAMATICALLY: DOHMH statistics show that prior to the off-leash policy, the annual number of dog-bites Citywide exceeded 40,000. In 2006, City animal bites dropped to less than 4,000, of which only 55, or 1.6%, occurred in parks. These numbers include on and off-leash dogs, and other animals.

OFF-LEASH EXERCISE AND SOCIALIZATION: Always leashing dogs contradicts peer reviewed studies from reputable animal behaviorists, major veterinary schools, and reports from the CDC, which all conclusively illustrate that dogs exercised and socialized off-leash are less aggressive towards people and other dogs, and more acclimated toward urban living. Running with a dog on-leash, which is difficult for the elderly and disabled, is no substitute for the benefits of playing fetch or socializing with other dogs off-leash.

FEW DOG RUNS: The City has 1,700 parks, but only 48 dog runs for 1.4 million City dogs. The off-leash policy -limited hours and designated locations- is a reasonable accommodation to everyone to enjoy our parks.

RESPONSIBLE DOG-OWNERS: Dog owners use peer pressure to ensure that people pick up waste, comply with the law, vaccinate, license and train their dogs. They never condone bad behavior. They are also
parents, athletes, and bird-watchers, and want to see parks safely and responsibly enjoyed by everyone.

Finally, after a year of uncertainty, the successful 20-Year off-leash Hours policy has been:

1) Declared legal by the NYS Supreme Court
2) Unanimously approved by the NYC Health Board
3) About to be formally codified by the NYC Parks Dept.

Big thanks to the Juniper Park Civic Association executive board for spending $10,000 of their members' money to bring the lawsuit that threatened to extinguish the policy. It's because of you guys that the policy has been declared legal, passed public health muster, and about to be codified.

The policy is now stronger and more secure than ever. Thank you, thank you, thank you. It's almost enough to make us forgive your past vindictiveness, but not quite.

Yes, your lawsuit backfired badly for you, but at least hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who support the Off-leash Hours policy will benefit from your money and effort. So don't feel too badly about it.

(Big thanks to the Juniper Park Civic Association executive board for spending $10,000 of their members' money to bring the lawsuit that threatened to extinguish the policy. It's because of you guys that the policy has been declared legal, passed public health muster, and about to be codified.)

This should have been done the right way to begin with. The JPCA was wrong on substance, but right on form. I'm happy with the result.

"A subset of dog-as-weapon: dog-as-deterrent. Almost 40 percent of dog owners buy dogs, big dogs, because of fear of crime. At home, these animals may provide security; outside, off-leash, they can be a deadly menace. Parks officials say attacks by big dogs on smaller dogs are multiplying, but fast-moving dogs (and owners) are rarely apprehended."

http://nymag.com/nymetro/urban/pets_animals/features/2734/index.html

And now, they're legal.

Hey poster #8:

The facts speak for themselves. The JPCA's own online petition company called over 4,000 of the anti off-leash "signatures" fraudulent and removed them.

For those interested in reading the NY Post article about the JPCA online petition fraud, click here.

For those interested in seeing the evidence of the online petition fraud, including screenshots and email correspondence with iPetition, the company that hosted the JPCA online petition (until the JPCA quickly pulled the petition offline after being exposed), click here.

I've finally been outed. Correctly. Imagine!

My name is now and always has been Bob Doocey. I've been laughing at all the morons who jump down Bob Holden's throat for what I write. Bob Holden and I have fun when I email him on the latest thing he said, or will be blamed for saying anyway.

Stuck on stupid. Once the imbeciles believed and spread the word that Bob of Middle Village was, indeed, Bob Holden, it was fun to light them up with more postings.

You see, Bob Holden does not do blogs. He does not do petitions. He does not do fraud.

I know Bob Holden. Bob Holden is the essence of integrity and honesty. These are the traits the fools fear most. One more item: Bob Holden is unrelenting. So, keep fearing his honesty and relentlessness.

The contrast between Bob Holden and all the unleashers is awe-inspiring. In Bob Holden is a straight shooter; in the unleashers, well there's just smelly dog poop.

TO: Ginger in Bklyn:

You'll never have to part with the $500. Reap - no matter the name - is one of the imbeciles who want to take over the parks by chasing out every decent resident of New York.

Note that this is what the imbeciles WANT. What they will get is Leashes or tickets.

Ginger:

You're a genius! You figured out the governmental conspiracy that's behind this entire policy! Brava! Yes, the sinister cocktail party in the 1990s. Actually, it was held with the Bilderberg Group. That makes it even more sinister!

I love your stereotype of DINKs with dogs! Brilliant.

The only problem is all the DIWKs in Prospect Park every day recreating with their dogs. That kinda shoots down your nasty stereotype.

Sore losers.

Hey Bob,

Reap What You Sow, aka Conspiracy Theory, aka Thank You JPCA, aka any number of phony names except his real one (notice his above rants are only minutes apart), has again revealed himself to have the maturity and social graces of an adolescent. He lost his other flaming outlets, so he is holding on for dear life to this one. It must be difficult to walk around all day long like a ticking timebomb. Notice how he isn't enough of a man to apologize for making the false accusation that you were someone else or for falsely stating that someone used the JCPA's password and didn't hack into their petition. He also can't defend NYC DOG's cheating, so he calls people who disagree with him sore losers. Again, Bob, it's nice conversing with someone who doesn't resort to flaming. Time to go walk my dog - on a leash. Do you have a dog, Bob?

NYC Dog: Take this test publicly:
Specify, in detail, why and how it is good for park users without dogs that dogs are unleashed. Omit from your response any reason why it is good for a dog owner to unleash his or her dog. Answer why is it good for each of the following people:
The elderly
Infants
Pregnant women
The disabled
The blind, who cannot see if a dog is ready to attack
The deaf, who cannot hear if a dog is ready to attack
People who limp or have difficulty walking
Those on crutches, canes or in wheelchairs
Little children who just want to play
Young and teenage kids who play rough in a park
Father son pairs playing catch or Frisbee
Mom walking her several youngsters through the park after school
Mom taking her baby through the park in a stroller
A dad walking his sons through the park on the way to school
A retired man walking his leashed small dog
A young woman walking her leashed little dog
Hasidic Jews
Muslims
Asthmatics
Park users who simply want no contact with any dog at any time
Park users who want to spend a few relaxing moments after a long day
Park users who are allergic to dogs
Park users who detest dogs and would never dream of hurting any living being
Why should these people have any dog, leashed or unleashed, imposed upon them?

Can you spell out why it is good that an unleashed dog lunge at or attack a pregnant woman?

Can you spell out why it is good that an unleashed dog chase or attack a child who is running wildly with other playmates of the same age?

Do you believe that all people, with or without disabling attributes, should be permitted to use any location within any city park at any time of their own choosing, without be approached by any dog, even a docile, friendly dog?

Do you believe that people must make accommodations for dogs, leashed or unleashed? Such accommodations as not using some portions of a park, or staying entirely away from some portion or the entirety of a park, for some portion of the time.

Do you believe that some people should have access to a park in a location or at a time when some other people are denied access to the same location at the same time? That's a long way to ask if you believe that some people should be favored because they own a dog and want to use the park to unleash it, while others must stay away?

Why do you post such warnings about the horrible dangers of unleashed dogs in a confined space, but simultaneously, advocate that the same dogs be unleashed in the unconfined areas of the parks?

How do you propose that a blind person evaluate whether or not this or that unleashed dog is ready to attack?

How should an infant or child evaluate the aggressiveness of any particular dog? Shouldn't infants and children be permitted to use the park for play without the necessity of becoming experts in dog behavior?

Shouldn't the elderly and infirm be allowed in any location of any park at any time without having to worry about being attacked by a dog?

Should those people with a life-long dread fear of the sight of a dog be required to never use any park at a time and location of their own choice without having to deal with a dog?

Which is the superior creature: Human or dog? Is this ever a close question?

Is it an imposition that a dog be leashed at all times, in all public places? Is that an imposition on the dog? Is that an imposition on the owner? Why?

Do some dogs bite? What are the triggers that will make one dog or another attack or bite a person or another dog? Can any of these triggers be present in one park or another?

If the triggers to a dog attack are numerous, widespread and innocent (such as the use of a deodorant or perfume), which is the proper remedy: ban the existence or use of the triggers, or leash all dogs in all public places at all times?

You warn that children who run and yell can trigger a dog attack. Should children be banned from the park? Or, should children be allowed in, but banned from running and/or yelling?

For you and dog owners who want to unleash the dogs, what is the acceptable number of bites or attacks that can occur before requiring that all dogs be leashed at all times in all public places?

Is it acceptable that some children have faces, ears, fingers or eyes ripped away. Is it acceptable that a pregnant woman be attacked and lose the child? Is it acceptable that a rollerblader have a dog chase and bite her? Is it acceptable that a dog attack and kill various wildlife finding sanctuary in a park?

If any attack by a dog is unacceptable, what do you propose is the remedy to prevent all future attacks by any dog?