There is a crisis with record numbers of abandoned and surrendered dogs that have shelters in every community overwhelmed. Why not allow people who are able to pay hefty rents adopt these animals and provide appropriate care, such as a dog walker during the work day training for the owner, so the animal get proper socialization and exercise? Landlords could seek a cleaning deposit and conduct periodic inspections.

Regarding:

"Proposals are expected to move forward in 2012 for the Golden Gate National Recreation Area — national park land within the city that includes Crissy Field, Fort Funston and Ocean Beach — that would greatly reduce off-leash play areas, because of dogs’ impact on natural habitats and species."

Findings of dogs' impact on natural habitats and species in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (which is very different from any other "national park land" for its recreational value) Draft Environmental Impact Statement aren't really proven and are disputed by many environmental engineers/scientists. The GGNRA has had a history of going out of its way to produce "scientific" evidence to achieve its desired result (recall the confirmed false sciences used in the Point Reyes National Seashore debate). It would be better to say "because of dogs' AND HUMANS' POTENTIAL impact on natural habitats and species."

If anything, humans and other socioeconomic factors make far greater impact than dogs.

The GGNRA land (not "national park land") is deeded to this government agency by the City of San Francisco. Regarding "Efforts to preserve indigenous habitats and species go back decades, predating the current dog craze." > that started practically when GGNRA took over a few decades ago. Is it a coincidence that these "efforts to preserve indigenous habitats and species" within a urban city of 800,000 people started exactly a few decades ago? I can't say for sure, but it's certainly food for thought.

I live in a building with a no pet and no smoking policy. Nothing wrong with dogs or cats, but it is very comforting not to have to deal with the their mess and odors in the building.

The Bay Citizen has bought the fiction that all opposition to native plant restorations in the Bay Area comes from dog owners. This is the fiction that is promoted by native plant advocates because there is little sympathy for dogs. Unfortunately, there is just enough truth to it that the media has always bought it and the Bay Citizen has now fallen into the same trap.
There are many reasons why people object to these native plant “restorations.” Here are just a few:

• All the non-native trees are being destroyed in the Bay Area in order to “restore” the landscape to native grassland and dune scrub. These projects will leave the Bay Area virtually treeless. (see http://sutroforest.com/)
• These projects use toxic herbicides to destroy the existing habitat of the animals who live here NOW, as opposed to the animals that lived her 250 years ago. (see http://coyoteyipps.com/2010/06/02/poisons-used-by-natural-areas-program/)
• Because of climate change and existing air and soil conditions, these projects are futile. Professor Arthur Shapiro (UC Davis) calls these projects, “ploughing the sea.” (see http://milliontrees.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/professor-arthur-shapiros-comment-on-the-environmental-impact-report-for-the-natural-areas-program/)
• When these projects are fenced—as they usually are—there is no recreational access, that is, not just dogs are fenced out, EVERYTHING is fenced out. (see http://milliontrees.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/fortress-conservation-the-loss-of-recreational-access/)

Do your homework, Bay Citizen. You are just telling half the story. You could, for example, obtain the public comments from the Planning Dept on the recent EIR for the Natural Areas Program. You would learn from these comments that critics of these projects outnumber supporters by three-to-one and that there are many criticisms of the projects that have nothing to do with dogs.

I for one am glad that those signs are going up. I love my dog very much and take him out with me all the time- to appropriate places. The grocery store is simply not one of them. I don't know when it became ok to just walk through a store with a dog and think nothing of it. Crazy times.

Th eother thing that really chaps me is the looseness of the definition of a service dog. At one point it was pretty easy to figure out who the real service dogs were and it all made sense. Now anyone can claim that their dog is a service dog and they are free to take the dog where ever they want. complete BS.

If the Bay Area doesn’t wake up soon, the beautiful and health forests and wildlife that most people think of as nature in the city will be gone along with millions in tax payer dollars and billions in real estate value. Water and trees turned San Francisco from dunes into the beautiful landmark it is today. I thank the dog owners for being the watchdogs warning us of the harmful destruction of our parks and environment.

“dog ownership has clashed with one of the city’s most highly prized tenets: appreciation for the natural environment. Efforts to preserve indigenous habitats and species go back decades, predating the current dog craze.”

1)Funny how groups think history starts with them. The domestication of dogs was integral the development of human civilizations and dates back thousands of years, long before this unsustainable native plant restoration craze started. In fact, dogs were here a integral part of Native American culture on these lands even before Europeans arrived and are no passing craze.

2)The current “native plant restoration” craze - destroying our established urban forests and wildlife habitats in an unsustainable and expensive attempt to return to sand dunes, poison oak scrub, and usually brown native grass of a fictional 250 years ago – isn’t natural and relies on chainsaws, pesticides and intense labor.

Take a look at what scientists say at: http://milliontrees.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/professor-arthur-shapiros-comment-on-the-environmental-impact-report-for-the-natural-areas-program/

3)Don’t kid yourself; this is not about dogs. People with dogs are just an easy, minority target, that most of the population doesn’t care about and a few people actually hate. The natural areas program claims to be about recreation when it is really about completely closing huge sections of the little open space in SF and closing about 25% of trails for everyone, not just dogs.

4)According to the SF environmental review on the natural areas program, doing nothing (aka, maintenance plan) is the environmentally superior plan. These proposed natural areas programs are detrimental to all our health and well-being and to the environment.

If tenants want to add dogs to no-dog apartments, they should be willing to give up their rent control or otherwise pay increased rent due to the increased wear and tear.

Since Mary McAllister chose to quote me in her comment, let me say that (1) I have had dogs for 40 years and have attempted to be absolutely responsible in my handling of them and (2) I do not live in San Francisco and (3) my views on "restoration ecology" are completely unrelated to and unmotivated by anything about dogs. Or, to be cutesy about it, I do not have a dog in this fight!

Here's a completely different perspective.

I don't want to deal with dog odors and feces in the hall. I don't want to deal with a neighbor whose "friendly" dog jumps up on me and shreds my clothing with its feet. I don't want to move into a rental that stinks of the cat litter box and dog messes of the previous tenant. I've already lived in a rental where the dog urine had so permeated the carpet pad that one's eyes watered in the living room.

I don't want to be bitten because someone who couldn't control a cocker spaniel decided they need a Chow. I don't want to be kept awake all night by your neglected dog barking and howling because you're out clubbing. I don't want to be tangled in the leash of your spoiled, untrained, dog.

I like the Copenhagen approach to dogs - NO DOGS IN THE CITY! No dog feces on the sidewalks or in the children's play areas; no biting, no clawing, no annoyance whatsoever.

And here we see another problem with dog fanatics and their pests. Get a dog from a shelter and force the landlord to subsidize it.

When I have had dogs in the past, I preferred AKC or UKC animals because if a dog has been bred for a purpose and disposition - and in the case of the UKC held to a performance standard - one can select an animal that is adapted to the situation where you intend to keep it.

Why should any pet owner be forced to get an unpredictable dog dumped in a shelter when there are responsible breeders with well bred, predictable animals available? I have had rat terriers that were excellent at controlling rodents in the barn and were pleasant to have as pets; there was a reason Teddy Roosevelt was fond of them. I had a beautiful Walker Hound who was an excellent tracker and an ideal dog with small children; I did not exactly expect her to be an obedience champion and kept her in an enclosure whenever I was at work since if something good presented itself to her nose, she was off and away. She used to run with my brother when he was competing in distance track events in high school; those ears serve as radiators and she would happily run with him for miles when the weather wasn't hot.

As a child, my parents obtained a "rescue" dog who was a cross between a terrier of some sort and some kind of hound. He was hyper and aggressive like a terrier, and about as obedience trainable as your average Basset Hound or Beagle. Not a good genetic combination. After two years, he was disposed of by my parents after one too many attempts to nail someone. Oh, and my parents were irresponsible pet owners since he wasn't neutered and inseminated most of the females in the neighborhood, including forcing his way into a house to reproduce himself.

Why should anyone want the results of someone else's canine irresponsibility? Better a mandatory spay and neuter program than the silliness of adopting the unpredictable offspring of random breeding resulting from irresponsible ownership.

Just as bad are people who obtain fad animals. We had the Jack Russell craze, the Border Collie craze, and the Dalmatian craze. The two latter are not exactly house pet material; the former is a very active and alert animal that requires an owner who has time to pay it the attention it deserves.

Given the problems that dogs cause in urban areas; I still like the Copenhagen solution. If you want an urban pet, consider a guinea pig or a house rabbit.

Nadja,
You've pointed out your own solution and missed it. Move to Copenhagen.

This really isn't meant to be inflammatory. The point is what do we want for San Francisco? Do we want a noisy few to push out a minority if they can? You may not like dogs/cats, but should we have a city full of Nadja clones? No offense, but I hope not. Many underestimate the importance of a pet to its parent. Arnita is right; this is not about dogs, cats, chickens or pigs. This is about people who value their pets vs. who don't value other people's pets.

What happens when a group points out a preference of yours they'd like to ban?

Rather than make this a class/speciesism issue, why aren't people addressing the actual issues? E.g., I think you'll find most other dog owners probably dislike unruly dogs than non-dog owners do. I'm all for putting penalties in place, just as we do for irresponsible drivers. Imagine we just disallowed cars because non-drivers find them inconvenient. And let's make these penalties equal opportunity -- that is, I don't want my clothes torn up by a dog, child or anyone. Fine them if it happens.

Draconian "crackdown" measures like those taken by National Park Service re GGNRA are regressive. USA, California, and San Francisco, especially have led the world in progressive, open-minded, understanding. This has served us well and should not be abandoned now.

Samir
P.S. BTW, humans are a species too.

This note was sent to me privately, so I asked the writer if he wanted to share it with our readers. He said yes, so here is it with his permission.

Best,
Scott

What constitutes a member of a family? This emerges as one of the three central questions around which swirls the debate over the GGNRA’s plan to drastically curtail the areas in which dogs may be off-leash. My Mac dictionary includes this definition of family: “a person or people related to one and so to be treated with a special loyalty or intimacy.” But this excludes adopted children. Clearly, being related is not a requirement for being a family member. How about living perennially in one’s household, being loved by the human or humans there, loving the human or humans there and each treating the other with a special loyalty or intimacy?

Not if you’re a dog! infers the writer of a recent letter. Dogs “may seem like a member of one’s family,” this writer allows. But those to whom dogs so “seem,” must be deluded, because “to everyone else they are just another dog.” Not to stray too far from the subject, but this reminds me of the Great Communicator Ronald Reagans famous assessment,“If you’ve seen one redwood, you’ve seen them all”; in other words, instead of each being beautiful, magnificent, and amazing, every redwood is “just another” tree.

What are we to tell the blind or disabled individual who lives by herself, with her dog? Not your family! What are we to tell the widow or widower, whose children are far away, who have not remarried, and who live alone, with their dog? Not your family! Why not? Well, dogs aren’t human.

But it was not too long ago that a majority of white people in this country didn’t think it was possible for a black person to integrate into a white family. Being human didn’t matter. There have been plenty of parents who have disowned gay or lesbian children. Being human didn’t matter. The letter writer from Mt. Shasta suggests that that’s all that matters now.

So I will go straight to the chase, and play the Hitler card. Hitler is one human about whom everyone but a skinhead can agree on. So who would you rather claim as a member of your family? Adolph Hitler, or Bozo the basset hound? Bear in mind while contemplating the following: no matter how badly its master will treat his dog, it is a very rare dog indeed who will turn on him. You can do practically anything to a dog without being bitten for it. So, here is my point: who has more of the qualities and characteristics that merit the word “human”: Hitler or Bozo? Perhaps to be a member of one’s family does not necessitate being a member of our species at all. Or, perhaps dogs are more “human” than some people.

The second major issue in the great GGNRA debate is also introduced by the same letter writer, when he said that the choice of keeping a dog in the city “does not confer the right to exploit a national resource for the sake of the dog owner’s convenience.” I am not sure that any “exploitation” occurs when a dog runs after a ball, but I’ll let that go. The issue being raised here, is, whose convenience is being served by letting a dog off leash? The only convenience that accrues to the dog owner is the fact that it is the dog’s convenience that is being served. It’s not people who are chasing the ball on the sand, or into the waves; it’s the dogs. Well, “dogs are not citizens, and they do not have human rights,” writes the man from Mt. Shasta.

Of course, there are certain rights that it is silly to say a dog would ever have. For example, a dog will never be able to vote. Or will she? There is more than one way to vote. I maintain that you’re voting when you wag your tail. Your behavior on an outing is a clear vote for or against the outing. On some subjects, dogs can express themselves at least as well as people. And then, to whom would you, strictly from personal preference, rather grant the right to peacefully assemble? A group of neo-Nazis, or a group of chocolate Labs? As for religion, try to tell my dog, when she stares up at a squirrel in a tree, that she’s not having a spiritual experience!

In any case, the letter writer’s inference is that, not having rights, dogs are not parties whose convenience is a matter for consideration. Well, this is speciesism at its worst. Dogs have needs, and they include more recreation and exercise than any human will ever need. It is an acknowledgement of the nature of the dog that there be ample places for it to exercise. To curtail adequate exercise areas because a dog is not a human is inhumane.

The third major question in the debate is raised by another letter writer (“Save fish and birds,” 4/13). This is the question of dogs versus wildlife. “Are we going to tell posterity that the coho salmon of Redwood Creek or the snowy plovers of Ocean Beach went extinct because a vociferous minority insisted that their extremely un-endangered dogs’ pleasures mattered more?”

The veracity of this premise merits the same accusation of absurdity as does the writer’s very next sentence: “There are plenty of off-leash areas in the region.” The few off-leash areas that now exist comprise 1% of the area that constitutes the GGNRA , and they want to trim it back to nearly nothing . But let’s pretend otherwise; show me the study that demonstrates that the dogs who get to frolic on the sand of Muir Beach are causing the extinction of the salmon in Redwood Creek. Who is more responsible for the depletion of any salmon population: dogs, people who fish for salmon, or people whose logging tailings infiltrate salmon run rivers?

It’s not a question of dogs pleasures mattering more, but a question of dogs’ needs mattering as much as the needs of wildlife. Whose fault is it that dogs are no longer wolves, hence no longer wild? It is human beings who are responsible for the existence of the canine species. Let us not insist on depriving dogs of that which by their very nature—and man's shaping of that nature—that they are required to have: a place they are allowed to be themselves. A society is civilized when it offers places for dogs to run free.

Rocky Leplin

I have owned dogs and cats my whole life. Honestly, animals are filthy compared to humans. A dog, for instance, can put fifty times as much dirt and hair in a swimming pool filter as one human bather. There is no reason to allow non-service dogs into grocery stores. It is jst rude.

Actually, the Bay Area opposition to native plant restoration and native animal protection is typical hypocrisy. Bay Area residents are very big on forcing bogus environmental rules down the throats of rural residents, farmers, and loggers while carefully exempting themselves. Look at all of the enviro-hysteria surrounding the Sierra Club and cougar hunting, for pity's sake. Apparently rural residents are expected to put up with having their livelihoods consumed by surplus predators - not to mention their families - while Bay Area dog owners should not be inconvenienced when letting their dogs run by endangered species that aren't cute enough.

What's missing from the story is the size of the dogs. In Paris and similar European cities, people tend towards small dogs while here in SF you may see a great dane being lead down the sidewalk. Personally, I'm tired of cleaning crap off our sidewalk or steeping on it in the park. If people value having a dog in a city, this alone flies in the face of that argument.