There were fewer bared fangs and more wagging tails Wednesday night as the Rancho Laguna dog park issue returned yet again to the Moraga Town Council.
Calls for cooperation and healing after the often heated debate over the park’s use preceded a 3-2 vote to rescind Ordinance 236. The controversial ordinance ended off-leash dog hours in Rancho Laguna Park except in a fenced area yet to be approved by the Council. Backlash from the original passage of the ordinance in May, lead to a successful petition drive calling for a voter referendum on the Council’s decision. Wednesday night’s vote by the Council to back down, followed a unanimously approved motion to accept the County’s certification of that referendum petition against 236.
Council members Ken Chew and Karen Mendonca voted against rescission. It was Vice Mayor Howard Harpham who cast the swing vote, breaking ranks with Chew and Mendonca. The three originally cast the votes that won passage of 236. Harpham cited the Town’s greater need to focus on passing the upcoming sales tax initiative aimed at shoring up worn roads as motivation to end the controversy.
Councilmember Dave Trotter, when pressed by Chew about the next step at Rancho Laguna, hinted at the possibility of continuing discussion of the issue after the November election. The Town Council is barred by state election law from taking action on a 236 re-boot for one year.
Follow Lamorinda Patch on Facebook and Twitter.
Sign up to get Lamorinda Patch headlines and breaking news delivered straight to your inbox!
At that moment - it became perfectly clear what the problem was.
1) Animals must be "under a person's (voice) control" 2) Animals only permitted off-leash during designated times 3) No off-leash animals in parking lot 4) No off-leash animals during "any event approved or sponsored by the Town" These rules were established for public and dog safety, and to minimize conflicts between different types of park users. My personal experience, and the many comments on the Town web site and at various TC meetings demonstrates that some dog owners fail to follow all four rules. For dog owners that don't like rules (2) through (4), these ruled don't apply at Mulholland (rule 1 still applies). Suggesting that people who are afraid of dogs, or don't like to have their peaceful use of the park disrupted by dogs, should go to the Commons strikes me as unnecessarily insensitive and divisive. FCS suggested a different approach--education and enforcement. Although his suggestion seems impractical to me--it hasn't worked over the past four years, don't see why it would work in the future--at least he had a suggestion. You just want people who disagree with you to go someplace else. That's not helpful.
The kids are fenced in because kids are curious and like to roam. Would you rather lose your dog or your child? Most play areas are fenced in for the kids safety, so people/animals can't just walk off with one of them because parents aren't paying attention. They are fenced in for their own protection but your attempt to say they are fenced away from the park so the off leash dog people can have their fun is pretty entertaining. Nice spin.
Some, however, always look to government to regulate bad things happening, and fail to realize that the solution lies within themselves. The State passed 300 laws this year almost entirely about "our protection". At this rate, we'll all be wearing full body armor by government mandate and you won't have to worry about being injured by my dog anymore. Shazam! Problem solved.
Sure, good idea lets all decide on what "life" means and make sure that the town doesn't allow for this kind of freedom for dog owners. They should just buy a bigger yard or go to mulholland ridge right? Seems very similar to yours and Jon's complaints about people shouting down the other side as irrational. Since the off leash hours are here for another year, why not use this year to air your concerns to the dog owners directly so that they can adjust their behavior so that you can enjoy the park with them. I imagine your complaint is more philosophical than physical thou so good luck with the next 12 months.
If I have my kids in a play area, I'm paying attention to them. Is RLP a giant park such and we are going to lose track of our kids or not pay attention to them? Not likely. Fenced in for their own protection? From what, the dogs? So by your logic, the kids shouldn't leave the play area when it's off leash hours....for their own protection as you say. Nice. I love dogs. I've had dogs (black labs, golden retrievers, Airedales.....) Never was a cat person. Dogs are great. However, the bottom line is I will take my kids out there, whatever time of the day it is, and if I have any issue with a dog jumping/getting near/etc., yes, all bets are off and MPD will be en route.
i was recently at Nations in Moraga sitting at a table next to a table with a couple of men talking about this issue. May I clarifying, spewing their very one sided opinions loudly for the entire restaurant to have to endure. They thought they were absolutely right. They knew that everyone who thought otherwise was "an idiot". If these are these men are typical of the people who have been debating this issue I can see why not resolution has been found - and will not be found. There are two sides to every issue. Both sides need to be heard by each other. Honestly, this shouldn't be this difficult. There is a solution that would satisfy both sides. If both sides would get off their high horses and openly listen.
I will be exercising my freedom to enjoy RLP. We will see how that goes. It will go a lot better if dog owners heed FCS's advice. FInally, at least by law, the topic is not closed to the TC for 12 months, and we will see if the fall brings the will to adjust the current every-evening-is-offleash arrangement, and to make headway on a long-term space-sharing solution. I agree, however, and will endeavor to do my part, that the topic could use a rest for a while.
In response to Doug's comment that dog parks are safe, he might be right if the safety metric only considers fatalities to people. Dog deaths at dog parks are distressingly common. Data on people being bitten in dog parks is hard to come by, but a GGNRA study indicates bites are reasonably common. See the following--a bit dated: "Dogs biting visitors, aggressive behavior toward other dogs and/or people ... and visitors being knocked down are the public safety concerns related to off leash dog walking ... GGNRA's tracking of dog-related incidents during a 3-year period (1998 - 2000) reveals a total of 54 reported dog bites. Between January 1, 2001, and June 16, 2001, there have been 13 reported dog bites. According to protection rangers, these numbers reflect a small fraction of the total occurrences, reported and non-reported." Dog bite fatalities average about 30/year across the US. Don't know if any happened at dog parks, haven't reviewed every story. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States for details. Last October's dog mauling at RLP was reported to TC, and is well known among Lamorinda Dogs leadership. It doesn't appear to have changed their opinion--they seem to think that since the aggressor dog was put down, the problem has been solved. I'm not convinced.
Most communities are larger and more diverse demographically. We are an allegedly educated, well-to-do, thoughtful populace. We avoid known aggressive breeds, which are a major contributing element for requiring spatial separation. Does our community possess the sophistication and maturity to have an fence-free off lead park, which not long ago was the norm? My take is that the ONLY missing component is the absolute commitment by owners to TRAIN, SOCIALIZE and SUPERVISE their animals. An object analysis of your own dog either qualifies or disqualifies it from an untethered, multi-dog scenario. If you have even the slightest doubt of your dog's ability to be loose among other canines, then GO ELSEWHERE. A more subtle, difficult to imagine or accept concept is the potential aggression linked to leashing a dog in a park full of the unrestrained. Dogs are extremely territorial and a short lead clearly defines and limits Fido's turf (with master at its center). This intensifies the animal's instinctual 'defend/protect' programming and almost ensures 'growling' or a dustup of some degree. It also leaves the leashed dog fewer options and no room to maneuver. A loose pet, assuming it has been properly socialized, it is actually safer in this instance. This and other essential canine behavioral subtleties are all part of informed dog ownership. They can save you and your dog from many unanticipated but avoidable situations.
"Talk to Tom McCormick who got voted out of office after trying to develop a teen center in Orinda (not for that but because he was too outspoken on another topic). " Tom wasn't too outspoken about his stance on debris blower regulation; he was candid, a trait we appreciated (even if it may have led to his defeat). This fall, two Council candidates in Orinda will have ample time to articulate their views on Orinda's debris blower problem, and well before election day!
I would also agree that dog on dog attacks are the most significant dog park risk - by far. By unleashing our dogs at the park, we are accepting that risk. We all understand that. I don't believe you've ever said it, but certainly members of the Town Council have. They try to equate dog on dog attacks to dog on human attacks. There is simply no comparison and they do themselves a grave disservice by trying.
Crime Doggie is right. Cars are the risk - not dogs. This is why State law mandates fencing around playgrounds near roads and parking lots. There is no such requirement between playgrounds and dogs.
If we did, it would save 1.2 million lives per year worldwide. WOW! Talk about selfishness. We're so wrapped up in our need for convenience that we're all willing to let 1.2 million people per year pay the ultimate price for it. Make no mistake - I'm a guilty as anybody in my love of the automobile. What really amazes me is that 1.2 million people a year do not die because of automobiles - they die because of piss poor driving habits. And yet - nobody seems to make mention of it. We're more concerned about dog parks, I guess.
Let's see if I can finish the thread without earning the axe. One day recently I was at RLP early with my Congodogs (3). A couple (50 ish) arrived with two dogs, one of size (50 lbs) and one little guy (5-10 lbs). They free the larger animal and my dogs do the standard sniff check and soon they are chasing one another, new pals, having dog 'fun'. They have had PeeWee in their arms and as they lower him to the ground they slap a lead on him (mistake #1). PeeWee lays his ears back and puts his tail solidly between his legs. My pups see the new addition and run over to meet and greet. My guys are not size conscious (human thinking), they are simply wondering what PeeWee has to offer. PeeWee, utterly unsocialized, starts barking and biting. My dogs do not retaliate but stick around to see why PeeWee's all upset. Then (mistake #2) they pick PeeWee up. Now my dogs think its a game and jump up on PeeWee's mom playfully, no biting, lots of tails wagging. Peewee's mom goes ballistic and kicks at my dogs violently. I am right there, 3-4 feet away. I suggest she put PeeWee down and let them associate untethered. Mom looks at me as if I am insane and offers some very unsociable words. I leash my pups and walk away. As we pass while walking the scene repeats, duh. So I beg them. Back off a dozen feet and put PeeWee down, no lead. I leash mine and release them one by one and in three minutes, they are all playing like lifetime pals. Not rocket science.
So we don't waste a bunch of time - please refrain from the entirely self centered "I don't want to" or "Why should I have to?" response. We've heard those already.
1) Distance--RLP is an easy walk, Commons is a drive. 2) Flat turf, limited trees. For kicking a soccer ball, playing flag football, flying model planes, throwing frisbees, etc., RLP a much better configuration. 3) Not usually as busy--getting picnic tables can sometimes be an issue at Commons, rarely at RLP. 4) Access to EBMUD trails--we often do a family hike on the trail out to the reservoir, or up the ridgeline, and want to end with a picnic at RLP. That doesn't work the same way at Commons. Finally, there's a perverse irony that we can't realistically bring our dog with us to RLP during "dog hours"--he's not the type who mixes well with all the other off-leash dogs in that particular environment (although he does OK at Mulholland or Redwood), and keepng him on-leash while other dogs are off-leash doesn't work, as FCS correctly notes. That's a problem that spatial separation would solve.
An intelligent dog owner that, for some reason, wants to tether a dog in an off lead setting simply drops the lead until introductions are made. This assumes the tethered dog has been successfully trained and socialized and will respond to voice commands. The leashed canine at the off lead park is something of a rarity and most times occurs with under-enlightened folks that are convinced it is the proper posture for introduction. When one of my charges has a medical treatment going on or some other condition is present that make a leash necessary, he/she stays home, period. They get an on-lead neighborhood walk in lieu of the romp. Dropping the lead temporarily does not seem difficult, but who knows. Another element that has escaped scrutiny thus far is 'whole' (un-spayed or castrated) animals. My dogs had their glory days in the confirmation ring and lure courses before they ever saw an off lead park. Hormones bring out primal urges and behaviors that no degree of TSS can nullify. You bring a 'whole' animal to the off lead park and you should be asked to leave at once. I met a woman at RLP that told me that her bitch was in season again, but was not concerned because all the males appeared to be 'cut' (dog talk for neutered). Insane. The process greatly reduces the drive, but not entirely. Please keep them away until "fixed".
Anon.
His alpha side has a tendency to set other dogs off without any aggressive acts on his part, particularly when he joins an established pack hierarchy. For example, there's a Great Dane in the neighborhood, who walks fine with a couple of other local dogs, but goes off whenever Tahoe walks by. We have to be careful to give them a wide berth. There's no way I'd allow Tahoe off-leash with that particular dog. He's done fine with other alpha dogs off-leash--he used to love to run with a small pack of three Irish Wolfhounds. Anyway, my main point is that leashes are sometimes necessary, because they help keep incompatible dogs apart from each other, and it's much easier to keep dogs separate than to break up a fight. That said, I agree with your point that off-leash dogs usually get along better than on-leash. The most volatile combination is a mix of off and on leash. Finally, I think your "TSS" approach may be necessary for some of the owners--like the owner of the in season bitch you describe.
TSS is mandatory whether that (or any) dog ever sees an off lead park or not. Dogs need to know where they stand and who is boss. It is comforting to them to understand what you expect of them. Then all one need be is consistent with them as the less they are forced to "go primitive" to solve situational dilemmas, the more assured they are. "Tahoe" the Shiba may not be off lead material. Doesn't make him a bad fellow, just not a candidate for free form canine sociability. My boy, "Ozzie" was not at all an off lead prospect throughout his (thankfully short) show career. Once finished with that stuff, he was bred twice then 'cut', it took some training cycles to get him to drop the need to dominate (all 25 pounds of him!) everything in sight and now he is a charmer. He excelled at lure coursing, as well, but when the race was over he required swift bundling. I had no illusions about him ever qualifying to be off lead compatible, some perfectly fine household pets should stay clear of off lead scenarios. Up to a point, the issue cannot be forced and I was ready to keep him on lead and away from off lead parks, but fortunately he mellowed. Leads in off lead scenes put a lot of pressure on the leashed dog. If you have any doubts, find a way to ease them into it. A large place like Point Isabel has a great deal of land and mid-week, mid-day visits (when numbers are down) is a good place to begin.
http://www.nycoffleash.com/html/index2.htm
http://leerburg.com/dogparks.htm?set=1
Thanks for the validation.