HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 03 18 Other - Document was Addressed at Workshop
Date: 03182002
The following Document was addressed on
03/18/2002 Workshop Meeting.
.
PawPark Plus Workshop
March 18,2002
Table of Content
Sections
.
I. PowerPoint handout
2. Overview of Why, What, and Where.
3. People Traveling with Pets
4. Sanford PawPark Survey Results
5. Support Signature Summary
6. Web Pages Shown to Central Winds Expansion Committee
7. The Case for Space Report
8. Las Cruces & Santa Barbara Proposal Documents
9. Pubic Open Space & Dog Bite Law
. Dog Bite Prevention Humane Society of the United States
. Insurance Information Institute
. American Veterinary Medical Association
IO.Sarasota County's 17tb Street PawPark Summary
.
.
.
.
~
~
~
~
~
rJJ.
bJ)
~
.~
~
~~
r:/J 0
H..c:
(]) rJJ.
~~
~ ~
.~ 0
~~
. .
~
m
.-
-c (.)
CD (.)
~ ~
i ~
fn .c
CD 0
O:.m
N
o
o
N
~
00
,..,...-I
~
U
~
::E
.
.
e
oc!S
~
......
c:
Q)
tn
Q) ....,
'- c:
D.. CD
~.. E
~...... CD
ca tn >
d CU 0
~ D.. ....
d a. f/J c.
~._ "C E
~ J: c-
~ tn -C CD "-
rl"\ '- -... 0
V...J. 0 t-
~~ Q) "-...., U)
~ c: oc-c
~ 0;: Q) f/J e .,g
"... . '- ~ ... ....,
~ ::Jca~CD
~ Q;'5CO:!:
ca D.. LL I I I
~ .
....---- .l
~J
.
.
e
~
o
.~
~
.~
~
~
(l)
Q
r:J:J.
..a
~
~
~
~
~
~
tn
c: ........... ~
C) ~ 'I-
__ .... Q) CD
tn tn 'I- c:
CD 0 cu CD
cocnm
. . . .
.
.
.
c---
00
bIJ
~
-~
~
~
Vl
~
Q)
'S
.~
~
~
~
('--
tn
......
Q) (1)
c.Q.
CO (1)
(.) > =
,ft CU CU
VI.J: ...
"'C tn I- ('.
c:...... (1) ~
~ t: (5 0
(1) ... t: -
Q) -c (1) -- -0
> .- ...... E
. _ tn s::: 'I-
....... (1) (1) (1) ...
;; 10.. 0 en 0
Q) ~t: tn-c
C. ; 3: tn ca
EEOe~
o :>1-0 ~
(.) ;:> ... (1) ;:>
Q) 0 ::s .J: 0
J:::I:OI-C
t- I I I I
.
.
.
.
~
(l)
.-0
~
(l)
~
~
r:n
~
.
r./l
.
~
OJ)
~
.~
~
o
.~
~
.~
r:n
o
~
tn
.... (1) 0
o -- ....
(1) ~ =: Q)
.c tn == ......, t:
+-' -c (.) (1) ~
U) a;~c. 0
CO -- ....
u.. .c: ~ -c
~ t: ~ 0 S
CO _ 2 (1) ....0 cu
" ..... .. (.)
.... -- .... ~ ~
3: en Q) '0 U) "'C
co (1) C. (.) m w
c.. -- E -- .... .,..
+-' - (1) '-II
L.. -- O.c CU en C
:J 0 0 ~ C) __ CU
o L.. oC.c E tn
..... (1) ..... -c - c: 0.....
o.c tn c -- L.. (1)
+-' -c CU ~ Q. D..
0)0 C.c:~ -c
c L.. ~..... ~ en (1)
-- 0 ~..... - +-' N
CO.... =~ c=
0..... C) 0 -- (1) (1) CU
- .......... ~ C) --
+:; (1) ~.... CU c -c (.)
-- -c ..! ~ ~ -- 0
enoD..o.so encn
~:!: I ~ I
. .
- - -- -- -----
:t
.
(])
-B
OJ)
~
. ..~
~
.~
~
t
Q)
'S
.~
.-0
a
on
~
.~
~ u
u;.=
~..g
~ ~.....
.~
tn
......
t:
Q)
I.. Q) E
Q) ~ C.
=: CJ
ns tn.2
-c Q) Q)
t: 0:: >
co ~ ~
en e ..c ~
t: 0 ~ Q)
0'1- nsZ
... Q) Q)
~ .c . ,^ C)
...... C)...... V I t:
Q) t: Q) I.. ...
C. ... C. ~ 10
~ g .5 co 0 .~
00 f!C)~c
".. I- t: ... ~
.... ~ +:i CJ E
CJ) ...... CJ ~ , ...
... ... ~ ~ E
C) = tn Q) L.
o C) nsG) Q) 0
cc:ealtnCJ)O
. .. ..
_~__~_ .____~_ .._____ _~____m_____.~ _ .__.___ ___...___
.
~
.
.
,0
~
c\S
r:/)
~
c.8
~
on
.~
rJJ.
(])
Q
(])
;>
.~
rJJ.
~
(])
~
(])
~
~
cu
c:: cu
(I) C
~ -'= (I)
:!: +11I-'=
....., ... ... +III
c:::J c: (I) tn
Q) (.) .- -'= tn
(I) ca C) (I)
E tn .....,.- -
,... c: -'= ~
iIII.. -c .- ~ -
o (I) ,,~ ca - ~
... -c ~ -=:: +III -.
. _ IIpII > III:: -'= CU
> \J +:i C) CJ
c:cucu":.: ~
W ... c:: c: tn .-
o ... I'fl1f. c::
'I- (I) 'v tn C)
" -c +III ,,-C .-
Q) (I) <(- - c:: ~ tn-c
(.) +III .-::J'" cu-
,... CU pIft::J CU,,~ (I)
iIII.. , ft \J' "'" 0 a. ~.-
Q) '-' 0 I.Y'" ... LL
U. (1)C 0 C)Q)<(C)
~ :c = .... .~.2:: ~ c
= ::J CU tn - tn :.: .~
CU 0 E .... .c t/) .- n:I
.......... C ~,,::J CU C)_
(5 CJ) 0 a.. a.. <( a..
1-11(.) I I
. .
.
.
.
,
t::
o
~
~
r/l
u
.~
~
~
~
~ ~
n:s 0
c: ~
.- n:s
Q) I- N
> S -- ~
-i: Q) ;--
C > 0) ~
_ . c:
Q) n:s -::::J
~ (.) 0 E
.... 0 ~E
,.", - ....
,,, .-
c:.c == 0
O)~ 0)0
en ~ <C ~
I- c: -C I-
00 c:n:s
o ~ n:s a..
C CO .c ~
I I- n:s
o oCl)~a..
!~Q)O '-
O - (.) fIIft Q)
-.- '-I'.c
00= 0....
COOCO
.. ..
~- -~_._~-- ---- -~
- - -- --1
_ uU_ __J
.
.
.
r:rJ.
U
.~
~
Q)
::E
r:rJ.
r:rJ.
Q)
U
U
~
r:F1
.
:1
Q) 0
CD c:
E .-
- ......
ca 0 tn
E .-
..... tn (1)
~ c: tn I..
e. 0 ca ~
tn 0 ~ 0.....:=
~ c: ca..... tn CO
II.. (.) 0 .....
CD 0 tn::S .! (.) en
>... - -c ::s CD tn
W e. tn CO W -c (.) (1)
~ CDc.. 0 ~ CD c: (.)
L: C ~ t>> .c: ca (.)
tn CD c.. -== I.. C) ,9. c: ~
- 1:: -== CO c: VI CD
CO ca ~ CD · - tn .......... tn
o ::J 0:= (.) ~.="'C ;.= 'I-
t>>O.c:; _ ~m >CU 0
I.. e.~c: col-c:wE tn
m 0 ~CI) c ~(.)....O) ~
-= ~ ~ 0 ~ u_ tn c: -.!
~ '" .... II.. - - IIplt - :::s.- ~
> · - ... '-'..c. ..... ,ft
... CD 0 ca -- 0 ::s -C..... VI
~c3:E:g:Ea.<(~ m
u: I I <( I I :E
. . .
- ~ -- - - - -. ~ ~ ----------...
/
.
What Would a Dog Park Plus Mean
to
Winter Springs
Background Information:
According to the Pet Food Institute over 70% of American Households include at least 1 dog or cat.
Dog ownership (if we include households that own both a dog and cat) would represent better then
half that number or over 40% of American Households. Using these numbers it is easy to estimate
that at least 12,800 of the 32,000 Winter Springs residents own at least 1 dog. Considering the
expense of owning a pet and the fact that Winter Springs is made up for the most part of upper
middle class families this estimate is most likely low.
.
Years ago when our communities were more rural these pets and their owners had little restrictions
placed upon them, but as our city has grown, laws have been developed for the health and safety of
the general public. These laws include vaccination laws, leash-laws and pooper-scoop laws. They are
extremely valuable in maintaining the health and safety ofthe general public; however, they have
created several problem areas for the dog owner and hislher pet. Isolation and confinement of these
animals leads to antisocial behaviors. This behavior can manifest itself in several ways. Excessive
barking, digging, and a fear of other dogs and strangers. The excessive barking upsets the
neighbors, the digging upsets the owner, and the fear can lead to serious injuries of other dogs and
people. Not to mention the isolation on the dog owner himself (herself). After aU we humans are
social beings and when was the last time you walked up to a guy walking a big German Shepherd?
So what dowe do to change this trend?
Fortunately, a solution has been sweeping the country and is becoming very popular with both dog
owners and non-dog owners alike; "the leash free dog park". The name should probably be
"Human-Canine Socialization Therapy Areas" because that is the major function that it provides.
In December there where 525 of these facilities open or under construction. Now 2 months later
there are 577 of these facilities that have been added to existing parks or developed as "stand-alone"
recreation areas. This rate of growth represents approximately a 60% increase annually in
PawParks. This "wave" has just reached Central Florida and if Winter Springs acts quickly it can
ride the" crest" of the wave by creating a PawPark that others will imitate. So what does a leash-
free dog park look like?
These "Dog (or PawParks)" are totally enclosed safe areas (double gated) were dogs and their
owners can meet, play and socialize. The well designed PawPark has a 6' fence around the entire
perimeter, self filling water bowls, a shower area (sometimes just a garden hose), seats for people,
trash cans, and something to assist in cleaning up after the dog should it create a "mess". Pretty
much it's a "passive park with some extra water devices designed for dogs"; simple but what does it
do for dogs, owners and non-owners?
Benefits:
.
By bringing a dog to a PawPark you are placing the animal in an area to which it has no territorial
claim. Most disputes between dogs are over territory or out of fear. In a leash free environment no
one owns the ground and being leash free the dog does not feel trapped but reverts back to its
natural instinct to play. This socializes the dog to other dogs. At the same time the dog gets to meet
strangers (the other owners) in an environment where it is not restrained (the dog has no fear of
being trapped). This socializes the dog to strangers so on the off chance the dog gets out of the
.
owners backyard it is less likely to bite a stranger (good for both the dog owner and non-owner
alike). Finally, it is an area where owners and potential owners can exchange information regarding
training, care, and breed characteristics of the various types of dogs. Making the owner a better and
more well informed care taker of the animal. Finally, first timers who are thinking about a pet can
come to the Park and speak with owners of different breeds, thus, helping them make a more
informed decision on which dog is best for them.
But are PawParks safe for the general public:
Being totally enclosed and double gated virtually eliminates all risk to the general public. The dogs
are required to be on a leash when entering or leaving the facility. Owners must keep their dogs
under voice command within the PawPark and clean-up after them. "Aggressive Dogs" are not
allowed in the facility and if a dog gets overly excited the owner must remove it or place it in a time-
out area to calm it down. That explains what a PawPark is but what is meant by Plus.
Plus means Training Facility:
A well designed PawPark can do much more then allow dog owners a place for socialization. It can
also be a place ofleaming. Many dog-owners want to train their animals but don't have the
knowledge to do it effectively. Basic obedience training is a must for every dog and it's owner.
Taking things a step further; some dog owners would welcome an area to do advanced training, and
still others such as Search & Rescue Groups and K-9 Police Units are constantly reinforcing skills
that have already been developed. A well rounded PawPark facility could very easily provide a
common ground for these important functions. This Training Area could also be a source of
entertainment and education for non-dog owners to see and learn about the valuable services that
these groups provide to the community.
.
How much does a PawPark Cost to Build and Operate:
The major building expense associated with a PawPark is the Fencing. The costs associated with the
"7 acre" 17th street PawPark in Sarasota was report in the Herald Tribune (9/14/98) to "cost $9200
to create, with most of the money paying for fencing." In an interview with there Assistant Park
Director it was discovered that this PawPark uses 1200 "Mutt-Mits" (dog poop pickup bags) per
week. This in conjunction with mowing the lawn and water usage cost around $8000 per year as
compared to the maintenance costs on their Baseball Fields (similar to the ones in Central Winds)
which runs around $50,000 per year.
Why is this article being written:
A group of dog owners from Winter Springs would like to know how many Winter Springs residents
would be interested in including a PawPark Plus (or PawParkffraining Facility) in the up coming
Central Winds Park Expansion. If properly designed such an amenity could have separate access
and hours of operation to maximize the benefit to the public. Such a facility would add one more
recreational feature to what is fast becoming one of the most versatile and well designed Parks in the
State.
.
Written By:
Bob Rucci
407-695-7241
.
/' -,
, \-
.j
.:s
~.- ~
, 'ii.' ,
, ) ,'.J
i
(.... .
, .
)" #
~
;j
~,
~ ': A
; .)~ &U
')'"
< 11/
,
,
#
,J:>
#
/-:'" "':"\.
I/
"
o
&
~~fW'
Public Grounds
ai.'
#
tl
()
&0
Small Dog Area
rPJ "
"., ,~
,.. ~.~:"-'~,~.~~J c:l
"
."",
'\ r-../'
3\
,
(-"~-,,..-.....--
{1
D
c:::J CJ
.~\ <~--~
/ '
.' l.......
~". '
?ir'."
h
!J;
.,Q&
""~.'.,
. ,.J
~
(Jr
~o
e5-
t::::::l c:::J
Proposed
Fa"" Fark Plus
For The City of Winter Springe, Florida
....."
:.. :.. :.. :.. :~
.
f
~~'~~
0&
i7'
":)
{I:}
~"
Ii1'
, .J
Training/Events
~
riJ
'Ii
c::J Hanaicap~rklng
CJ Ga-eral Parldng
_ FbUc;e parl:in!:J
EE3 Vehicle AccefJ6 Gates
Tree6
../
If ~~G~d,"-<
/.:",-~
-..:', .:/
/.
#
.",
~
UP
#
~ .('l
~ "l...l J
r
'~..;
\,
",--,' .....\
.'
.
\
)
r:::~
........,.1"'.-:
\\.
~ . ,
.~ '-.,\\- jJ
1-'/
.
\
K-9 Training Areal
Event!;; Viewing
~
[QJ
0)
~.,
~>
E:J
& Trash Can5
[St) Firet AU:! K1t!l
~ ParI: 6enc;h"6
\.. Wsur Fountaine
~ (Human!!)
l\.. WSUr Fountaln5
U (Canlnee)
'(..
,
'--(
r)
J
{ ~
'...
~
,
;~f I
0& < J ."'\)
\~,~
" Dog 5h~r Area
/1\\ Dog Wa5t.e
U Plc;k up Ba95
en Park Rule6
~ Oonation Box
..., (TDyll &. P1a5tlc; Bags)
;. -~; CommUl'lity Board!
1----1 Event.5 Calendar
.
Why a PawPark Plus at Central Winds Park?
The simple answer is location, location, and location. First of all, Central Winds Park is located in
the middle of incorporated Winter Springs giving all residents equal access to the PawPark Plus
facility. It has excellent accessibility from S.R. 434 and allows visitors to approach via the 417, S.R.
419, or Tuskawilla Road. In other words the road system can handle the additional traffic that a
facility like this would generate. But most appealing is the recommended location within the New
Expansion Area of Central Winds Park.
By placing the PawPark Plus in the far West corner of the Expansion Area for Central Winds
several benefits can be anticipated.
First, it would allow for half of the needed fencing to be part and parcel to the perimeter fence for
the main park grounds. This would cut the fencing cost almost in half.
Secondly, by placing the facility in this location extended hours of operation for this piece of Central
Winds could be realized without changing the hours of operation for the main park; thus, better
serving the community.
Thirdly, the location is right on the Cross Seminole Trail which allows users to bring their dogs on
lead while traveling the trail. This fact included with the proposed Trail Head at Central Winds
would allow visitors to water and relax their dogs before or after hiking the trail.
.
Finally, in referring to the Article in the Orlando Sentinel (12/21/2001); folks visit the PawPark of
Historic Sanford from as far away as Tampa. In fact, I have met people from as far away as Ohio
who stopped at the Park in Sanford on their way to Disney. This limited but realistic interstate
traffic will bring people into our community and to our New Town Center.
But what is a PawPark Plus? In the simplest of terms a PawPark is a Play Ground for dogs and
their owners. Like a Play ground teaches children to socialize with other children .and adults, a
PawPark teaches dogs to socialize with other dogs and strangers (the other dog owners).
But what does the Plus stand for? Just like our baseball and football fields help train our older
children and adults to compete in various sporting activities the Plus in PawPark Plus is a Training
and Event Area. This will bring a unique quality to the facility and allow for community events to be
held such as agility competitions and basic training clinics for new dog owners. In addition, this area
can be utilized by our Search & Rescue Groups and Police K-9 Units as a place to reinforce the
skills of their dogs who provide such a valuable service to our community and all the communities
around Winter Springs. Again we come to location but this time it is the central location of Winter
Springs within Seminole County that makes this facility so attractive. Central Winds also is key in
it's location to these Public Servants as it has wonderful access to the 417, S.R. 419, and Tuskawilla
Road so ifthe call goes out they can respond quickly.
So the quick answer to; "Why a PawPark Plus at Central Winds Park?" is truly location, location,
location.
.
Plaatation.org Dog Park at Seminole Park
.
.
.
lof1
J
Y
Plantation
Ht.:t gJllf;;1 ill &n~C1P1"
LOft1~ of the ~r . .., I
city Council
Plantation Police
Plantation Fire Dept.
Solid WasteIRecycling
Unks
wysiwyg://2/http://www.plantation.org./parks_dpsp.html
; ~~ -- ~ I
L'_~CityPflrks: JL' ,Spor:tS :1 A~ua~cs ~.j. " Tennis ~
[~aCilltiel!..~J[J':Class S~~,~~t . MapslMast~r Plans JL-.Cal~ndarlEvents -.-J
11t
Parts
iHornoP;!Q1!)
.-",;r'",,"" "..:rr.'
Parks & Recreation
HAPPY TAILS DOG PARK AT SEMINOLE PARK
6600 SW 16th Street
Scheduled to open the end of 2001, the Dog Park amenities will include three separate
areas:
· A free run area for large dogs,
· A free run area for small dogs.
· A training area for all dogs.
Virtual lour 01 Plantation It will also be the home of the City's Police K-9 Unit. Pavilions will be constructed within the
park. More information will be available once the park is open.
Back to top
l:!l ,I-! ;','-11 ~I~ r r' '. ,I 'l I~ ':c t I". ~~'f,":-<; 1l7;;~;:;'!F~
nl.lt "* I ,.., . "L. ".. r ,~" , . ~ p_ tJi u'\~B1!
Home Page
Contact Us
Search
~
Copyright Statement 2001
3/6/02 2:07 PM
Plaittation.org Seminole Park
.
.
.
lofI
wysiwyg:! /9/http://www .plantatIon.org.lparKS _ Sp.11l1ll1
3
Y
Plantation
I lie gl"llts it. gro::l~
City Council
Plantation Police
Plantation Fire Dept.
Solid WasteIRecycling
Unks
I', <~>"';!~:L
, ,;",~..;r- ;:c<" ,"'!:J
~!:o" ~ " ...dii*iiiilf'1' ,
Virtual rour of Plantation
.~'.
t~.
'........ '
.'. '".
~..,,,,,..,', .y"'.
1':"),1\ .........
~-
1; _ -r~_nnis I
CalendariEvents _~
[. c~ Parks , ' ~ I[ 'S~~~ . 'l~ Aquatics .
rFacllitieS i :LCla-S!?'Schedule~'JI" MapslMaster Plans,.. r
~
Parts
1*"rtpP~ft
Parks & Recreation
SEMINOLE PARK
6600 SW 16th Street
,;, '<l ",-" ..~~
,;1..... "
':,... :=c~~ ~"~~
.~';l '"
">'i
:~......~ -,
. .~.;;:::'~'~~'
~_.._,," .e_ .~ . _
This active/passive park has two tennis courts, a tot-lot and a half-mile exercise trail. The
park also offers a pavilion, grill, picnic tables and restrooms.
Click to view larger photo
Back to top
Home Page
Search
,Ii I : I I , ',l~:;~i~
U1u I I I ' J I' i...>l',li,d~fiJ
Contact Us
~
Copyright Statement 2001
3/6/02 2:26 PM
..
't' ---..,.~-
"
19
r"'li
r= ;
.;l:"J.
~~
--?i;i
'I~~
'-'i'.:;_,:_,_
~-..,
~ 1;.;
~,,~
...
~.
~
~~
1''=1-
t\'
*~;'
Wt,:lcome to DOGGONE ONLINE!
http://www.doggonefun.com/
.,
.
.
.
10f2
Home
Subscribe
Hotlinks
Personalized
Travel
Info
All About
Jennv
Back Issues
Contact
Greetings from Cool, Colorful Colorado, home of Robyn
Peters,
Owner and Publisher of {)OGGONE NEWSLETTER, and Jenny, i op
Dog
DogGone Newsletter is written
; for "pet guardians" and dog
.
""i(.t.' 'lovers avout fun places to go
'~i~t~"I:: . '<~~ :::. ~:~~::~:::::h ~~:.:ur
J~/~~:~'~::, '.<~>: time activities and
i;.,',":g..',','....,<~,l,L,~;t.:,.r~l: accommodations throughout
,/ fJ~<",I",._" :',,' +~~~,
~B:t?~'\:.l(',...,;i';;:i the U.S., Canada, the
,~, ~!~~~,:~'i:,,~ti~ Carlvvean, and spots In Europe.
"J" ;.,. . - "1.~::~"";~- it;14
~' . 'H ihe 16-page newsletter Is
J puvllshed vimonthly, with
updated information on places
to go and things to do with
your "est friend. A su"scrlptlon
to DogGone New51etter is a
must for your travelll"rary.
DogGone Newsletter will not only entertain and Inform you and your
pal, but It's a great gift to give to another dog-lover (and oh, so
affordavle ).
Go to IIsuvscrlve nowll for all the specifics.
2/19/02 11:47 AM
Wj:lcome to DOGGONE ONLINE!
.'
.
.
.
2of2
http://www.doggonefun.com/
DogGone Newsletter is filled with travel tips and other gotta have information
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Each Issue of DogGone Newsletter will feature:
~ From The Groomer's ~ An.
o Table 0 Nose For News 0 Products for Pooches
e The Trainer's e' e
Book Reviews Those Doggone Ads
Territory
a e e Surfer Dog's Cool
Visiting Vet Readers' Adventures
Internet Finds
6 Beyond Fetch e Travel Pointers
1(,'
, .
, ,':,',." .,.,,1..'
, . :' " ,
. " .:.:::r
And of Course Articles and More Articles
ABOUT FUN PLACES TO GO AND COOL THINGS TO DO WITH YOUR DOG
DogGone Newsletter PO BOX 19498 Boulder, CO 80308-2498
303-449-2527; 1-888-DOGTRA VEL
email: roblipete@earthlink.net
2/19/02 1l:47 AM
~
.
.
.
Robyn Peters, 04:47 PM 2/22/02, Re: Future PawPark P1us
Return-Path: <roblipete@earthlink.net>
From: "Robyn Peters" <roblipete@earthlink.net>
To: "Bob Rucci" <djshadowdesign@mail.earthlink.net>
References: <E16dE6N-0002WY-00@harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Future PawPark Plus
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:47:51 -0700
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
1
Hi Bob,
I would be glad to write an article about your PawPark when it is up
and
running. Please send final information then, along with photos of
dogs in
the park.
Thanks.
Robyn
Robyn Peters, Owner & Publisher
DogGone Newsletter
PO Box 19498
Boulder, CO 80308-2498
303-449-2527
roblipete@earthlink.net
www.doggonefun.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Rucci" <djshadowdesign@mail.earthlink.net>
To: <roblipete@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: Future PawPark Plus
> Dear Ms. Peters,
>
> I'm engaged in getting a PawPark (off-leashing area) Plus
(training/agility)
> facility incorporated into my City Park System. I've attached a
sample
> picture of the facility and would appreciate any comments you might
be
> willing to provide. Our campaign for this PawPark Plus is nearing
completion
> as is a new Town Center for the Community. Additional information
on our
> effords can be found at:
Printed for djshadowdesign@mai1.earth1ink.net (Bob Rucci)
1
,""
.
.
.
Robyn Peters, 04:47 PM 2/22/02, Re: Future PawPark P1us
"http://home.earthlink.net/-djshadowdesign/index.htm".
>
>
>
>
>
>
2
Best Regards,
Bob Rucci
Winter Springs,
407-695-7241
Florida
>
Printed for djshadowdesign@mai1.earth1ink.net (Bob Rucci)
2
Dogpark.com: off-leash, on-line
.
.
.
lof2
http://dogpark,com/
Press
Releases
About
DOQoark.com @
Credits and
LeQal Stuff
Contact Us
Submission
Guidelines
Sitemao
Search
\'\ap' .
,'>' .Py
~;
", " <C:J0. tilt,
'" C"". y.".
.' ,(f'"
,. 'Q :i}~(J'
~.;-I ;,0 ~O;n
~\. ./:
~,:.. '~.. ,'U.~
'~,.'" O':"~
.k ", 9,
, . 'lIe, ""..".,t.W\, e€."
. f;11 , I h ~ ""
dQgpQrk. (:0"'
CCC
\,,~
(,v (
This Month at
Dogpark.com@:
J(Q)illil OUif Off leash ID09lPark.com Coh.smD'1l:
DisCllISSBOIl1l Usit Joel Davis Reviews:
NlOW! "Choosing A Dog"
favorite Areas:
o Find a Dogpark
o The Birthday Club
o The Right Dog
1J'lhle ~1Ol~/Pl(d)II'~
1I'aJOOW
Total US Dogparks
Listed Here: 6@J!.
Change from previous
month: + ~~
[Q)@@J ~cal rlJ<<$ 0 Ill)
(CcallJ'il~@]<al
~~33 Dogparks in Canada
- is your favorite here?
Dogpark.c:om@:
Wunnell' of the Top
<l0'lI IR>__ <1:":.0._ _~ .0.11.._
lDo91park.com !Regulars:
January Survey:
How many dog park
visits this year?
December Survey
Results: How many
gifts?
Dog Columnist
Dog Writer's View
lOoQllPark.com !Favorites:
Dog Treat Red pes
Send Us Yours!
Dog Friendly Hotels:
Where to Stay
Show Us Your Dog!
Mixed Breed Dogs
Dogs at Work
The Shop @
Doark.com
Great things for
you & your dog!
. Secure shopping
· Free Power Bark
with eve order!
Get ial ~lI'filP:
I){ 2 foil' IJ{ 9) lLlE! (d) $Ihl
epartments:
reature
omforts: NEW
TEMS!
. NEW
2123/02 9:56 PM
.
2 people were from Lakt~uunty
.
.
.
1. About how many miles is it from your home/lodging to Paw Park?
100% response level
40.7 were less than 10 miles
41.8 were 10-15 miles
9.9 were 16-25 miles
7.7 were over 25 miles
2. How long did it take you to travel from your home/lodging to the park today?
100% response level
26.4 had driving time of under 15 minutes
67% had driving time of 15-30 minutes
6.6% had driving time over 30 minutes
3. Did you take toll road to get to the park?
98.9% response level- of that level of participation:
14.4% did take toll roads
84.6% did not take toll roads
The average expenditure on toll roads was $3.00
.
4. How long do you plan to be in the park and in the area today?
98.9% response level- of that level of participation:
17.8% expected to be Yz hour
47.8% expected to be Yz to 1 hour
28.9% expected to be more than 1 hour up to 2 hours
5.6% expected to be more than 2 hours
5. What is your average annual income?
94.5% response level-:- of that level of participation:
3.5% had an income level from $0.00 - 14,999.00
4.7% had an income level from $15,000.00 -- 24,999.00
17.4% had an income level from $25,000.00 - 34,999.00
11.6% had an income level from $35,000.00 - 44.999.00
62.8% had an income level over $45,000.00
6/7. Are you a resident of Seminole County?
100% response level
78% were residents of Seminole County
22% were not residents of Seminole County
If yes, do you reside in Winter Springs?
86.8% response level- of that level of participation
15.2% live in Winter Springs
84.8% do not live in Winter Springs
If you are not a resident of Seminole County, are you a resident of:
15 people were residents of OrangeN olusia Counties
1 person was from Brevard County
.
.
.
'.
8. Was visiting the park one of the reasons for your trip today?
98.9% response level- of that level of participation: .
98.9% visiting the park was the reason for their trip
1.1 % reported that it was not one of the reasons for their trip
If yes, was it the primary reason:
81.1 % reported that visiting the park was their primary reason
9. On about how many different days did you visit Paw Park during the past six (6) months?
* A 0 response or a first time response was not counted due to the structure ofthe question. *
80.2% response level- of that level of participation:
43.8% visited the park between 1-10 times in the past 6 months
23.3% visited the park between 11 - 25 times in the past 6 months
19.2% visited the park between 26 - 50 times in the past 6 months
13.7% visited the park over 51 times in the past 6 months
10. Since this type of park is funded with tax dollars, do you think this type of park provides
appropriate value to a community? On a scale of one to five, with I being no value, please circle
what the value of the park means to you.
No value
1
2
3
Great Value
5
4
100% response level
0% indicated a level of value at 1
0% indicated a level of value at 2
3.3% indicated a level of value at 3
14.3% indicated a level of value at 4
82.4% indicated a level of value at 5
11. Would you like to have another park, like Paw Park, in Seminole County?
100% response level
98.9% indicated they would like another type of park like Paw Park in Seminole County
1.1 % indicated they would not like another type of park like Paw Paw in Seminole County
If yes, a proposal for another park of this type is being suggested to the city of Winter Springs for
placement in Central Winds Park on SR 434. Do you support this location for another'dog park
similar to Paw P~k?
97.8% response level- of that level of participation:
100% indicated they supported this location
12. If you want another park ofthis type, but oppose placement in Central Winds Park, where in
Seminole County would you favor placement of the park?
Since most answered yes to question 11 for Winter Springs, and then answered question 12 with
. .1.
comments: '
The responses to question 12 are:
Survey participant #
"
.
.
.
#2: Lake Mary would be nice too!
#5: The Paw Park concept was originally not looked upon with enthusiasm by the Sanford/Seminole
County Politicians. Now, with every day bringing 1 OO's of dogs to this fantastic facility, the
politicians are changing their perspective. This is a great idea... please continue in other areas of this
state.
#9: Anywhere in Winter Springs - Central Winds Park is fme!
#16: Don't oppose (Central Winds Park) but the more the better
# 17: It is a fantastic service
#18: Great addition to any community. Animal lovers are everywhere.
#20: That's great!
#31: Lake Mary
#39: Lake Mary
#40: I love having a dog park - my dogs & their happiness mean everything to me
#49: Also would like one in Longwood
#51: Jetta Point looks like a good spot!
#57: Great idea - we look forward to it!
#59: Longwood/Lake Mary or Altamonte Springs
#71: Longwood Hills Rd
#74: WS (Winter Springs) okay but would like one in Lake Mary/Sanford area
#77: Somewhere in Volusia County also
#79 Anywhere
#85: Its okay
#90: Usage of this park proves it is a valuable community asset.
.
Summary to be added on
March 18th
.
.
PetPhones: animals.., with an attitude.
.
.
'.
lofl
http://www.petphones.com/segments/calendar/
Dr. Rick Says...
...._-~ ---~,. -".~._..._,- -~'--- _.~"
;:,~,~, ~~w~ ~~~9;~:'
Pet Peeve BITCHSLAPI
.~ _., ._.____v ..' ~:.. ~'-:C-':"'"'~~'~'~'
:~~i"~l'~T~~~~~;,~
PetE vents Calendar
Good Day Adoptables
,.~.~. ~.,., --"""7' -:~-~~~' ""~.""'t
Mia's, Diary)" ,:"
.,~...~l_ _.... _ .__.,....'-~_..~'..,. I_..~,::;,._
Photo Gallery
.. ,- -". - -.--c__."..._.__......_.._
~e~~"~~~~_::':
Cool Links
PetEvents Community Calendar
MARCH 2002
03.18.02 PawPark Plus Workshop Meeting The city
of Winter Springs, Florida will be holding a workshop to discuss
the creation of a dog park, and the cast of PetPhones will be there!
Check out this website for more information,
APRIL 2002
04.14.022002 Annual Golden Retriever Rescue
Reunion The reunion will be held at lovely Gemini Springs Park
in Debary Florida, This park is 1 mile west of 1-4 off of exit 53, just
after the Lake Monroe bridge in Sanford - easy access from a
major highway! Check out www,grrmf,org for more information..
3/9/02 2:53 PM
.
We the People of Winter Springs are very interested in the development of an OtT-Leash Dog Park
ffraining Area similar to those being provided in other communities (example design on separate
page). We request the City take action to develop this Park as soon as possible. The Park should be
maintained as a part of the Winter Springs PARKS AND RECREA nON DEPARTMENT, but
allowed to have expanded hours of operation to meet the community's needs. It is our desire that this
Park be included as a part of the Central Winds Complex Expansion and will also provide a non-
exclusive Police K-9 training area. If room can not be found at Central Winds then an alternative
location should be identified as soon as possible.
Name (print)
Address
Telephone
Signature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
. 6.
7.
8.
9.
10.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
15.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e
.
80LZf 'UP!JOI.tl 's~u!JdS J3JU!M.
3(JJ!:J MOlloH A3)(JD.L fL6
s~o!JdS J3JU!M. JO SJ3UMO ~Oa
.
We are very interested in the development of an Off-Leash Dog Park ffraining Area similar to
those being provided in other communities (example design on separate page). We request the
..ty take action to develop this Park as soon as possible. The Park should be maintained as a
~rt of the Winter Springs PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, but allowed to
have expanded hours of operation to meet the community's needs. It is our desire that this
Park be included as a part of the Central Winds Complex Expansion and will also provide a
non-exclusive Police K-9 training area. If room can not be found at Central Winds then an
alternative location should be identified as soon as possible.
Non
Winter
Springs
Check Name (print)
Box
Address
Telephone
Signature
1. [J--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. [J--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. []--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. []--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~ [ J--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. [J--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'7. [J--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. [J--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. [J--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1(). [ ]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. [ ]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. [ ]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. [ ]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. [ ]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4!I!t. [ ]--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We the People of Winter Springs are inter...t of an Off-Leash Dog Park {[raining Area
http://home.earthlink.netl-djshadowdesignlresident.htm
.
.
.
lofI
We the People of Winter Springs are very interested in the development ofan Off-Leash Dog Park ffraining Area
similar to those being provided in other communities (example design on separate page). We request the City take
action to develop this Park as soon as possible. The Park should be maintained as a part of the Winter Springs PARKS
AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, but allowed to have expanded hours of operation to meet the community's
needs. It is our desire that this Park be included as a part ofthe Central Winds Complex Expansion and will also
provide a non-exclusive Police K-9 training area. If room can not be found at Central Winds then an alternative location
should be identified as soon as possible.
Name (print)
Telephone
Signature
Address
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Download
Back to Previous Pa2:e
3/3/02 I :06 PM
Dogpark.com - What Is A Dogpark?
httpJ/www.dogpark.comJparkwht.html
.
.
.
lof2
, I
I
GC5"d' ,I
,C::: ~ ,,~, (
0(; '- ';,)
'0 ' ~
~' .~~,
. ()gpG~
What &. Why
Dogoarks in
the US
How to start
a DOQoark
One City's
DOQpark
Exoerience
DOQoark
Etiquette
Add a DOQoark
to Our List
Visit with other
oeoole at our
DiQital DOQpark
Become a
DOQpark
Advocate
@oe~
,I~f_'''~:h".., .f>'! c:J l:
.<" ;; !:. ",.-,;
dQgpClrk. com.
What MS a DogpaHik atnld Why D@ We
!N~~dl Them?
Simply stated, a dogpark is a place where people and their dogs can play
together. As the name implies, these places offer dogs off-leash play areas
while their people enjoy the park-like setting. Amenities, such as fencing,
water, parking, and even grass, vary greatly among these places, but
'off-leash' and 'park' are the key elements that dog owners, um, taxpayers,
um, voters, desire.
For some dog owners, a dogpark may provide the only opportunity for
owners to socialize with other people and their dogs. Persons with limited
mobility, such as elderly and disabled dog owners, deserve to have their
taxpayer dollars used towards a safe, accessible place where they can meet
other people and exercise their dogs. For many people, visiting a dogpark is
a primary source of recreation. The ability to share activities with canine
family members at a dogpark is important, and increasingly recognized by
cities. A report on off-leash dogparks by Portland Parks and Recreation
states that "There is a newly identified parks user group: Dogs and their
owners. This user group is drawn to parks for open space, fresh air, exercise
and socialization for themselves and their pets. Coming to a park is their
chosen form of recreation, much the same as jogging or biking. They are
legitimate park users."
The Marin Humane Society has been involved in the development of a
number of local dogparks and states that
"There is no doubt that dog owners deserve to share in the "park pie" with
other special use groups like baseball, soccer and tennis clubs. The
recognized use of city and county maintained dog parks is growing at an
amazing rate around the country, and these parks can provide an excellent
venue for providing information on low cost spay/neuter and vaccination
clinics, the microchip ID, dog training, and other information related to
keeping canines happy and healthy. Dogs contribute immeasurably to their
family's quality of life, thus helping to foster a sense of community for
everyone. Making dog parks a priority creates positive community spirit."
2/5/02 I :22 PM
San Francisco Dog Owners Group
.
We need
Volunteers!
Be sure
to check our
Calendar
of Events
.
http://www.sfdog.orglfeatures/gooddogparksys.htm
A good dog park must be safe for dogs and owners:
· Protected from arterial traffic, steep cliffs, and other hazards
· Little or no foxtail grass, poison oak, and other dangerous
plants
· Free of broken bottles, used syringes, and used condoms
A good dog park must have basic facilities and services:
· Clearly marked location and boundaries
· Garbage cans, big enough for typical usage
· Signage, giving basic rules for dog and owner behavior
. Clips, dispensers, or other means of providing poop bags
. Regular maintenance
Whenever possible, a dog park should have:
· Benches for those who cannot stand for long periods
· Wheelchair accessibility
· Lighting, for safety in winter and to decrease criminal activity
· Easy access from public transportation
What makes a good dog park system?
Like other park users, different dog owners have different needs,
and so do their dogs. No one kind of dog park can give adequate
service to this range of needs. As a system, San Francisco city parks
needs to provide a variety of different terrain and special features for
the City's dog owners. Some dogs need room to run and explore
freely over a wide area, while others need the extra safety of fenced
fields. Playing fetch and chasing frisbees takes a large, flat area,
while some dogs (and their owners!) get their best workouts by
exploring shrubs and climbing trails. Some dogs and their owners
enjoy tracking or agility training facilities. Water dogs are popular
San Francisco pets; the park system should include swimming
access for them. Obviously, no one off-leash area could meet all
these needs. However, a SYSTEM of parks should have them all.
.
] of2
SFDOG Home I Press & Action Alerts I ,E!~ill.!,frflli
Run Free I Lost & Found Dogs I tlf.?JtJ) .f:((;;gf~~
Members & Visitors I ~ I ~
2/5/022:]7 PM
SFDOG Kids, Dogs and Dog Bites
.;7
.
Want more
information?
Sign up for
our Email
Discussion List
~';.~
-', ..'''': ::\
k~ J-'~,~
'!!I'~~I':j,:[ .
Be su re
to check our
Calendar
of Events
.
.
] of3
http://www.sfdog.orglhealthlkidbites.htm
Many parents are concerned that off-leash dogs pose a
significant threat to children. Nothing is more frightening to a
parent than to think of their child being injured by a strange
dog. It is equally distressing to a dog owner to think of their
beloved pet hurting a child, even accidentally. The good news is
that, with proper supervision, negative interactions between
children and dogs can be prevented, allowing children to
experience the warm and loving bond with a devoted pet. What
follows are some statistics on pet-related injuries and some
suggestions for preventing them.
Dog Bite Statistics
This data shows that the the percentage of dog bits to the total
dog population is remarkably low. It also shows the vast
majority of dog bites do not involve a strange or unfamiliar
animal, but the family's own pet or one belonging to a neighbor.
The statistics also indicate that in at least half of the cases,
biting probably resulted from unsupervised or inappropriate
behavior toward the pet.
According to a recent study, available at the Louisiana State
University Medical Center, there were approximately 100 million
dogs and cats in the U.S. in 1995.
· Between 1 and 2 million dog bites are reported each year.
· About 33 percent of all animal bites involve a child.
· 85 percent of all dog bites (80 percent of cat bites) are
inflicted by animals belonging to the victim's family or to
a neighbor.
· Roughly 50 percent of the bites were considered to have
been provoked. Facial injuries are more common in
children that in adults.
· Animal bites accounted for 1 percent of emergency room
visits in 1992.
What Dog Owners and Parents Can Do
Animal behaviorist have developed theories to explain pack
animal behavior that can help you safely supervise your dog
around children. Behaviorist theorize that dogs view their
human family to be their pack. Pack dynamics can be explained,
in simplest terms, as a process of determining a pecking order.
All pack members are submissive to the dominant pack leader
(the Alpha). The rest of the pack has their own
dominant/submissive roles with other members of the pack.
Without proper supervision, dogs may incorrectly assume a
child to be lower in the pack hierarchy.
2/5/023:]2 PM
SFDOG Kids, Dogs and Dog Bites
Ai.
~
.
.
.
20f3
http://www.sfdog.orglhealth/kidbites.htm
Due to the varying levels of intellectual and emotional
development in each individual child, it is critical that parents
help supervise the child-dog interactions and teach their
children to respect dogs. Here are some suggestions for both
dog owners and parents to consider:
11 Always supervise a young child's interaction with a dog.
Show them how to gently touch and pet a dog and let them
learn by example. Be alert so you can prevent your child from
being inadvertently knocked over by the dog.
. Do not force a child to approach a pet if the child is
frightened. Let them see how you interact with the pet and give
them time to gain confidence.
.. Teach children to never approach a strange dog without
asking the owner first. If the owner is not around, leave the dog
alone.
.. Teach your child never to startle or suddenly approach a
dog, even your own family dog. Explain that dogs may bite to
protect themselves if they feel frightened, if they're startled by a
loud noise, or if they're hit or handled roughly.
,~ Avoid situations where a child has food, toys, or stick-like
objects around a dog, which may lead to unpredictable behavior
by the dog.
.. Avoid letting a child stare face to face with a dog, because
the dog may interpret prolonged eye contact as a threatening
dominance display.
.. Stress that animals are not like people and that they only
understand certain words. Children are frequently subjected to
unrealistic views of animals in TV commercials and cartoons,
where dogs that talk, walk on two legs, and even use their front
paws like human hands. In~roduce children to pets in a calm
and quite environment. Avoid taking small children into an area
crowded with dogs, such as a local dog park.
ai' As a child gets older, encourage them to take their dog to an
obedience class where they can learn how to properly handle
their dog. This can be a rich and rewarding experience for both
child and dog.
ai~ Be aware of "leash aggression" - where a dog on a leash can
feel vulnerable and more aggressive that it otherwise would be.
If you dog is not friendly, do not let a child approach it.
.. Make sure your dogs vaccinations are up to date and that
your dog is in good health
2/5/02 3:12 PM
Bark-Park, Dog Agility Course Equipment f...ildren's Specialties Playground Equipment
http://www.childrens-specialties.com/Bark%20Park.html
0.
."
.
~~~cdI[J~m{ ~ ~~~o@~lbJ~~
Complete Playground Solutions
(888) 761-9100
. P L. E A s E ..'
HEL.P KEEP
US SAFE!N
SA FEl'f SAM
SAFEl'f SI
.
~ 'r<,,:'.~~' :','ti:' ":.;~;" rJ
,,' '1> .HOmIt: ',VI "1;!
. ;_-~::~"~~~~b_~i~.--:;(..,~j
., , '.;.',', :"", ~:' )j
!.PlaJg';'~~" 5A'tE!';.~t'l
.c.::=r.:!;:ll.1;:~:::~,~_.k'-:,...,.~~,J
." ,~' '.' ", .,;' 1
' ~1~~1I~(Jk(~~~~!
-,~~__,_~,.~,:''\.~, ''''t...,.~J
,.', ".-',' i" .". r]
... '~,~:". .. !~l-':\_ :',' tH'..'\'J.)
" OlffiI,oOr' F,umituN "\1
~':::;':j,~..'..; ;....z."l.~ '".,,_ ''':''~_'';-::;::;~
,[. '""'.., > '\~;';;':']
, "'q.shelnrsr. · ';. "'1,
.~_._ _.<>,~t}.., r'",:.'.,': .:,
.....J!'---"_"Ptt".__:::::x:.,._,,:t:~~P:;5.:
" ,>",'-~;~~~~~'~\2;':;,~ Park Structures and Children's Specialties Proudly Introduce:
'~-'t~":.':;,~:'~J.t7, II Plavnround B ui ment for Do os?? Absolutely!
D~, ~mishinF'tl F:7'
r:..:;".,.r~;..:.::~~'M-:.~~.....::;;.lQ.:.t
":.:;J ~':::':':.:~" ."~~' :0'1,\ _~",;.,_ 11
. ' Playgro~iI~"Safety' :Ii
."=_,':::~T=:, ~'2~,'j
,,: . BARK PARK,
~.'t. "';:..~. 1\', ~'~,;",l~~ ':.~<' n
. ':""c.tal.." "~~'i ~)l
.. "';,;< P " l.1
_',''''~,,", ._,_..1.-. ..y............... ..._~~, I.,
-.--.__i""..~_ __~'_,-......A-_
eli ck Her~"1
.}1!l;, ~IC, L, U,~,.l. T~,!...,'.
'~~IILI~.e :
~. .;; .C".. ,. ,'. ,'. ...._'. .,. ,-,_I ',,'r '... ' . ,__. .' 1.-'""
Newl
-'...',
;; "" .-1
... ., '.~ ,~!;. ",~..- ' . "
., .
- ,
It's our exclusive Bark Park--I
Dog Agility Equipment For use in off-leash Dog Parks.
Member of:
Dog Agility Course
Why choose a Bark Park'T7t\ from Park Structures and Children's
Specialties?
. National Recreation . Dog Parks Add Value And Quality To Communities!
"nl'i P"rk A<<n"i"tinn
I of4
2/5/02 5:38 PM
l
Bark.Park, Dog Agility Course Equipment f...i\dren's Specialties Playground Equipment
.
.
.
20f4
http://www.childrens-specialties.com/Bark%20Park.html
The continuing growth of urban areas has made open space for dogs increasingly scarce.
Bark Park'1M offers et owners the opportunity to exercise and socialize their dogs in a
secure environment. Dog ownership is growing, and
. ~,~..;c::~ ~ currently represents 28'Yo of the population. This
.,::{~:: ~",l''''.:i poses new challenges that require the re-thinking of
'~t!5:<i the municipal park, residential communities, and other
<J spaces where pets and people can happily co-exist.
The Bark Park'1M has been developed to benefit the
~:~~~ health and well being of dogs, and the quality of life in
.....".lot.i.
our communities.
Oklahoma Recreation
and Park Society
Missouri Park &
Recreation Association
~~. Bark Park'1M provides a safe and secure
. environment for dogs to socialize and exercise
freely while off-leash.
e.~. Bark Park'1M designs meet the needs of pets
~ based on size and physical ability by providing
separate areas for large and small dogs.
;-""^dWtw~.Ii4R&, 7;
: P.ul.. .,-.:I,lion '7 S
~.~ ir
t- . i
I" l~'
.".;1:
.~
ARPA I
Arkansas Recreation
& Parks Association
a.. Bark Park's'1M off-leash areas provide dogs an
~ unrestricted environment without infringing on
I the rights of other park visitors.
$" Bark Park'1M brings people together and fosters
a stronger sense of community.
ev.. The Bark Park'1M course offers pets a
" challenging environment that promotes
discipline and exercise.
e~ Modular design offers flexibility in the layout
'i!!'7 of Bark Park'1M, customized to the needs of the
customer.
iWPCAl: ...
National Playground
Contractors Association
-Mail us.
Well exercised dogs are happier, healthier, and
generally make better pets.
.y, Dog Parks add value and raise the standard of
., living in communities by providing its residents
and their pets with a place to socialize in secure
surroundings.
t. ..~ji:~i:._,~;u;r~~....; -:i(t:'J:: :;. ;~':7"'::._'_;~'.": ~:~~k.=U .._ .411 ~+,.+i^"~ ,....." ....,......"",,""'->>""+1\/ j""ct+" 11",.1
2/5/025:38 PM
BarkJ'ark, Dog Agility Course Equipment f...ildren's Specialties Playground Equipment
::;-
'I
http://www.childrens-specialties.com/Bark%20Park.html
r"1 ~IUIIU'I'" "'I ~ t'CoI "'U"~'11'1 1f'.;JIU"c..U
"in-ground" thus ensuring a secure and stable
area for pets and owners as well as minimizing the
incidence of vandalism.
.
~2e Park Structures has over 24 years experience in " ", '"" ::" ~~:~
~ the manufacture of commercial playground i~'('1 \- ,~ ' .
equipment. Over this time we have established j":.',~;:~
h 'f "ft,;:;
ourselves as a leader in this field with a strong ;~'t"'~
t t. f f d d b'l'ty '1<.{"~,,,.I,
repu a Ion or sa ety an ,ura I I . ~: '~~; ..
'W~i8t. ,\
l~lff~ ,"-
~1:. Unlike traditi~nal wood stations tha! h~ve a
~ short usable life, the Bark Park 1M with Its
all-metal frames and high performance materials is guaranteed for 10 years.
Each Complete Bark Park'TM comes with 13 exercise and agility stations
and an easy-to-follow instruction sign!
.
ev.. Standing and sitting
~ devices are non-skid
Check Out These Quality Specifications!
81:. All heavy duty steel parts are double corrosion protected
.. with zinc galvanization and brightly powder coated for
long lasting color.
e>> UV-Stabilized colorful plastic panels are .850" thick
high-density polyethylene.
recycled rubber matting.
.>> Bark Park 1M features all stainless steel welded
construction.
.>> Bark Park 1M features all stainless steel and
vandal resistant hardware.
.., Bark Park 1M comes complete with a 10 year
limited warranty.
.
30f4
2/5/02 5:38 PM
Bar~ l~ark, Dog Agility Course Equipment f...ildren's Specialties Playground Equipment
http://www.childrens-specialties.comlBark%20Park.html
;f
.
Find out more about the Bark Park" on the
Park Structures Bark Park" web pagesl
.
.
40f4
2/5/02 5:38 PM
r
--
The Case for Space
Expanding Recreational Opportunities for Dog Owners and Their Pets
A Report Prepared for
FREE PLAY
by
Eric Batch
Matt Hale
Ellen Palevsky
School of Policy, Planning, and Development
University of Southern California
Under the Direction of
Professor Juliet A. Musso
School of Policy, Planning, and Development
University of Southern California
Professor Christopher Weare
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Southern California
Executive Summary:
The parks, recreational areas, beaches and open spaces of Los Angeles are used for
myriad purposes. Los Angelenos enjoy running, walking, softball, soccer, tennis,
basketball, rugby, lawn bowling, golf, a host of other sports and play with children,
families and pets on the over 15,000 acres of open space in Los Angeles. Each of these
recreational uses provides significant benefits to the participants. With over 3.6 million
residents in the City of Los Angeles, however, different recreational activities compete
for the limited open space available. The City Council and the Parks and Recreation
;'
.-
Department must make a judgment on how to allocate scarce open space. This allocation
must strive to be equitable and must be responsive to the expressed demand of citizens.
We begin with the premise that creating more open space is not a politically or
economically feasible option in space-constrained Los Angeles. We are not asking to
build more parks, beaches or recreational facilities. Instead, we will argue that the current
allocation of open space does not meet the current demand for one type of recreational
activity: off-leash dog recreation. We conclude that fairness and citizen demand require
allocation of some existing open space for use as Off-Leash Recreational Areas (OLRA).
The report proceeds as follows. In Section One we briefly present evidence to support our
contention that the current allocation of open space for off-leash dog recreation does not
meet the expressed demand of citizens. We will focus our analysis on the Westside of
Los Angeles where the expressed demand is particularly high. Section Two provides an
overview of the benefits and drawbacks ofOLRAs to dogs, dog owners and other
residents of Los Angeles. Section Three identifies key stakeholders in the OLRA issue,
and discusses the preferences of those who favor dog parks, and those who oppose them.
Section Four presents criteria that attempt to satisfy the hopes of OLRA enthusiasts while
recognizing the concerns of opponents. Section Five provides information that
specifically addresses the concerns of those opposed to OLRAs. Section Six applies these
criteria to five potential open space areas on the Westside of Los Angeles that could be
re-allocated as OLRAs. In the end, we recommend that the City of Los Angeles designate
a portion ofDockweiler Beach as an OLRA. As we will see, this choice may not be the
"best" in terms of the hopes ofOLRA supporters, but it is the "best" for all parties
concerned and clearly the most likely to actually happen.
The case for more space...
In Los Angeles County there are 175,000 licensed dogs, which suggests that the number
of dogs is actually in excess of300,000. In all of Los Angeles County there are only 4
areas where owners are legally permitted to exercise with their dogs without a leash.
These four off-leash dog areas comprise a total ofless than 10 acres of space. To begin
with a fanciful example, if all the licensed dogs in Los Angeles descended on existing
OLRAs, each park would be required to hold more than 40,000 dogs or 17,500 dogs per
acre. More realistically, if only 1 in 5 licensed dog owners (35,000) would like to use an
OLRA, the demand is measured as 3500 dogs per acre, or 8750 dogs per dog park.
To place these figures in perspective it is helpful to compare OLRA allocation statistics
with other forms of recreational activities. Table One compares the figures for OLRAs to
competing recreational uses for open space.
Table One
Competing Recreational Uses
~creational Activity
J # of Acres
# of Users
r Users per Acre* I
..-....
r Off-Leash Recreation Area --11 10 .JL 35,000 II 3500 ]
r Tennis II 287 II 80,000 II 279 J
J[ ~ :=Ji IL I
Softball 1050 39,375 40
@~ lL ....,._m II II I
1040 105,000 101
* all numbers
rounded up
Softball:
According to the City Park & Recreation officials, there are 39,375 people in city
organized softball leagues. To accommodate these softball players, the city maintains 350
softball fields of approximately 3 acres each. These figures show that 1050 acres of open
space in Los Angeles are devoted to recreational softball users compared with only 10
acres devoted to dogs and dog owner recreation.
Tennis:
There are 287 city run tennis courts in Los Angeles. We estimate that given the size of a
tennis court and surrounding facilities, we estimate that 287 acres of open space are
devoted to tennis courts. According to the Southern California Tennis Association
(SCTA) there are 40,000 dues paying members to the SCTA, in the city of Los Angeles.
Because many tennis players do not formally belong to the tennis association, this figure
is under-estimated. We make the assumption that the number is underestimated by half
and inflate the number to 80,000 tennis players. Spread out over 287 acres, the number of
users per acre is slightly under 300, an order of magnitude less than the estimated 3500
users per acre of off-leash park land.
Golf
The City Parks and Recreation department maintains 13 golf courses. Based on the
assumption that one golf course takes up 90 acres of open space, an estimated 1170 acres
is devoted to golfers in Los Angeles. In 1998, the City Department of Parks and
Recreation issued 35,000 "city cards" that residents can use to reserve golf times at city
courses. As with the tennis example, this is clearly an underestimate of the total number
of golfers on city courses. To provide a fair estimation we inflate the 35,000 city card
holders to a total of 105,000 regular users of city golf courses. These assumptions lead to
an estimated 101 golfers per acre.
What if
Given these figures we present the following scenarios based on the question of how
much re-allocation would be necessary simply to provide an equal allocation between
OLRAs and the other recreational activities. The point of this exercise is not that dog
owners have more legitimate claims on open space than other activities. Even the most
vocal OLRA activists do not contend that it is necessary for dog owners to have an equal
allocation of open space. The numbers, however, show how dramatically under-allocated
OLRA space is in Los Angeles compared to other recreational uses.
.........
. Almost 100 times more OLRA open space would be required to provide dog
owners the same recreational opportunities as softball players.
--
. Over 3 million of Los Angelesi 3.6 million residents would have to be regular
golfers to equalize the amount of open space provided to golfers as to dog
owners.
· There would have to be over 1 million tennis players, over 25% of all
Angelenos, to have the same number of users per acre as dog owners currently
have.
. There would have to be only 1000 dog owners in all of Los Angeles who wish
to use OLRAs for their current allocation of open space to equal the allocation for
golfers.
These figures clearly demonstrate that the supply of OLRAs is inadequate. Moreover, the
expressed demand for OLRAs is particularly high on the Westside of Los Angeles. There
are two citizen groups on the Westside devoted to the increased allocation ofOLRAs,
FREEPLA Y and Hermosa Beach Friends Of Dogs. No other area in Los Angeles has the
level of citizen driven activism for OLRAs as the Westside. Although statistics are not
available, interviews with Animal Control officers suggest that the Westside has a higher
proportion of the dogs in Los Angeles county than any other area. Finally, FREEPLA Y
conducted a passive survey on the week of Oct. 4, 1998 to estimate the current usage of
the Westminster OLRA. The study found that over the course of one week over 2,000
dogs used this small (.75 acres) OLRA, making it one ofthe most intensively used parks
in the entire city.
By focusing on the Westside of Los Angeles we are also able to consider the use of beach
area as an option for OLRAs. There are clear advantages of beaches over parks, such as
lower maintenance costs and compatibility with existing land uses. We will discuss these
advantages and some potential disadvantages of beaches in later sections.
The Benefits of Dogs and OLRAs:
Dogs or companion animals have become an important part of our society. Companion
animals "provide many benefits which are difficult to quantify in monetary terms, but
which have important implications for the health and welfare of humans. " Senator George
Vast in his "Tribute to a Dog" called dogs:
"The one absolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish
world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful
or treacherous, is his dog. A mallS dog stands by him in prosperity and in
poverty, in health and sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground, where
the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near
his masteris side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer; he will
lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of
the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince.
When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wings and
.........
reputation falls to pieces, he is as constant in his love as the sun in its
journey through the heavens."
Research shows that dogs are more than just companions. They provide both physical and
mental health benefits to their owners. The importance of dogs in society has even helped
spawn a new field of study, urban animal management, which aims to ensure that animals
are taken care of in the urban environment.
Off-leash recreational areas not only foster the strong historical relationship between
dogs and people, they also contribute to urban animal management and the urban
environment. We begin by outlining the obvious benefits ofOLRAs to dogs and proceed
to show how these benefits spill over to dog owners and the community at large. We will
also show benefits ofOLRAs to dog owners and the community at large unrelated to the
benefits ofOLRAs to dogs.
Benefits of arRAs to dogs:
-~
· Studies have shown that dogs that exercise and are allowed to run freely are not as
aggressive towards people as dogs that are under-exercised.
· Allowing dogs to have an off-leash area socializes dogs. It brings them in contact
with other dogs and causes them to be less aggressive in each future encounter
with dogs.
· OLRAs improve the mental state of dogs. Many dog owners report that after a
visit to an OLRA their dog is less agitated, more relaxed and in general nicer to be
around.
These benefits were evident during a site visit to Ocean Park Dog Beach in San Diego. In
an interview, John Maloney, a regular dog park user, spoke extensively about how he
regularly took his dogs to the Ocean Park OLRA without any incidence of his dogs
displaying aggressive behavior toward other dogs or human visitors at the beach.
Benefits of arRAs to Dog Owners:
The benefits enjoyed by dogs are also benefits to dog owners. A well-adjusted, less
aggressive dog, is more enjoyable and easier to handle for the owner. In addition, there
are benefits of OLRAs to owners alone. These benefits again are illustrated by dog
owners interviewed at Ocean Park Dog beach. They include:
· OLRAs provide a vital public space allowing people to meet and form the
bonds of community.
. OLRAs allow people to have the pleasure of watching their dogs at play.
· OLRAs contribute to overall physical fitness of people by encouraging them to
exercise with their dogs.
. OLRAs provide an opportunity for dog owners to enjoy the outside.
Benefits of arRAs to the Community:
OLRAs also make dogs better members of their communities. By providing socialization
and exercise opportunities OLRAs can make dogs less aggressive, reducing the risks of
dog attacks. In addition, well exercised puppies and dogs are less likely to create a
nuisance by barking excessively or destroying property.
...-.....
Communities benefit in other ways that do not rest on the improved behavior of dogs.
These include:
. OLRAs promote public safety. Designated spaces for dogs and their owners
reduces the likelihood that dogs will be let loose in other recreational areas where
they could infringe on the rights of other park users.
. OLRAs make the surrounding area safer. Dog owners have an interest in the
safety of their community and can act as a neighborhood watch. In Venice Beach,
where crime rates are high, the presence of dogs and their owners on the beach
create an atmosphere of safety. In addition, designated off-leash spaces reduce the
resources law enforcement and animal control officials must spend on enforcing
leash laws, allowing of them to devote their time to other areas of crime
prevention.
. OLRAs are a social hub for communities. Dogs often help people break the
ice, allowing people who share interests to socialize while exercising their dogs.
These interactions help neighbors to get to know each other and to build a sense
of community. At a time in Los Angeles when it is often difficult for people to get
any sense of community, these interactions are perhaps the most significant
benefit offered by OLRAs.
· OLRAs promote responsible dog ownership. All users will license their
dogs, not only because the threat of a fme is greater in an OLRA but also because
there is considerable social pressure from regular OLRA users to do the right
thing. The social aspect ofOLRAs also tend to enforce the basic rules of dog
ownership such as cleaning up after oneis dog and always controlling oneis dogis
behavior. Finally, OLRA provide a centralized location for providing owner
training, pet information, and veterinary services.
Drawbacks and concerns about OLRAs
This analysis would not be complete without identifying all potential drawbacks to
OLRAs. A competent feasibility study attempts to identify all constraints, evaluate their
significance given different implementation strategies, and estimate the costs and benefits
of relaxing those constraints that are not absolutely fixed. Despite the benefits and
advantages of an OLRA, there are also some potential drawbacks. These concerns can be
categorized in five areas:
---
. Confrontations that may result within OLRAs.
. Dog behaviors.
. Dog waste.
. Irresponsible owners, including liability problems.
. The effective administration ofOLRAs.
Confrontations:
The first set of concerns regard fears that OLRAs will lead to various types of
confrontations. These concerns were evident in a 1998 study conducted by the city of
Hermosa Beach. After receiving several letters from residents asking for permission to
.........
walk their dogs on the beach, the city council of Hermosa Beach directed staff to conduct
a study. They reported several potential confrontations including those between:
. humans and dogs.
. two or more dogs.
. dog owners.
. dog owners and other park patrons.
. dog owners and police or animal control officers.
Behavior and characteristics of dogs:
The second set of concerns raised at various community meetings focus on the behavior
and characteristics of dogs. These include the following:
· Vicious or aggressive dogs may disrupt the smooth operation ofthe OLRA.
· Dogs may carry infectious diseases transmissible to both other dogs and
humans.
. Dogs in heat may excite other dogs causing problems.
· Dogs wearing spiked collars may injure other dogs.
The problem of poop:
The third major concern expressed about OLRAs is the problem with dog waste and
owners who do not clean up after their dog. This is the main argument against
establishing an OLRA on the beach. This is the primary reason why dogs are not allowed
on the beach in Hermosa, and why FREEPLA Y is having such a difficult time
establishing beach space for dogs in Venice. There are specific concerns that dog feces
and urine can pose both an environmental and public health hazard.
--
--
Irresponsible dog owners:
The fourth area of concern is owners who fail to take responsibility for their dogs. This
problem is evident in the fear that dog owners will not clean up after their dogs. On a
fundamental level, this concern is driven by the belief that there is no easy way to hold
dog owners legally responsible. Other potential problems with dog owners include the
following:
. Owners whose dogs are not under voice control.
. Owners taking multiple dogs to OLRAs. Multiple dogs may be more difficult
for one owner to control.
In addition, problems with irresponsible dog owners may be exacerbated by the actions of
others. For example, people who bring food into OLRAs may cause dogs to fight over it.
Similarly, parents who take small children to the OLRA may cause problems because
children and dogs often frighten one another, leading to unpleasant reactions.
The administration of OLRAs:
The fifth and final set of concerns expressed about OLRAs deal with the effective
administration of the OLRA. These specific concerns include;
. Problems in enforcing the rules. Who is responsible for enforcement of OLRA rules?
. Funding. The creation of each OLRA entails initial start-up and continued maintenance
costs.
~
............
With this outline of concerns about OLRAs we now turn to the identification of key
stakeholders in the OLRA issue.
Key OLRA stakeholders:
A number of interested parties have emerged to state their position concerning this issue.
It is possible to break them down into three groups; supporters, opponents on policy
grounds, and opponents for administrative reasons.
Supporters:
Stakeholders who clearly support designating off-leash dog areas (OLRAs) include dog
owners in general and advocacy groups such as FREEPLA Y and Hermosa Beach Friends
Of Dogs. Many non-dog owners are also likely to be included in this group because
creating a designated OLRA reduces the likelihood of confrontations with other
recreational uses.
The 175,000 licensed dog owners are a formidable stakeholder because of their sheer
numbers. They represent a potentially powerful electoral constituency and therefore, must
be taken into account. If properly mobilized, such large numbers could come out in force
to support a referendum concerning recreational areas and could also affect the votes
given to local representatives who favor OLRAs. Moreover, the desires of responsible
owners tend to be strong because they seek to provide adequate exercise for their dogs.
Thus, for them greater access to open space is not only desirable but necessary.
Consumers of urban recreational spaces are another stakeholder because they want to
enjoy public spaces for sports and relaxing. Some of these people may not like dogs, but
this fact would not necessarily preclude their support for a measure allowing dogs to run
freely in a designated area, especially if creating a designated OLRA decreases the
confrontations and competition for open space.
Opponents on Policv Grounds:
The two elected official representing the Venice beach area, Los Angeles City council
member Ruth Galanter and County Supervisor Don Knabe, have expressed concerns over
creating more OLRAs. Galanter currently appears opposed to more OLRAs. Her chief
concerns are for public health and safety. Council Member Galanter supports the findings
of Ronald F. Deaton, the Chief Legislative Analyst, that state that a potential health risk
exists when humans come into contact with dog feces or are bitten by dogs. Galanter has
also been influenced by the potential costs to the city for establishing, outfitting and
maintaining proper dog areas. Galanter, however, has changed her position from time to
time and in fact claims some responsibility for the creation of the Westminster dog park.
A concern voiced by both Council Member Galanter and Field Deputy Tom Martin of
Supervisor Don Knabeis office is that of government liability for these off-leash areas.
Since beach ownership is divided between local, county and state governments in
California, indemnification against liability is problematic.
Merchants, vendors, home owners, and residents in the surrounding areas of off- leash
dog areas also have an interest in this issue. At the present time, many people walk their
~
.........
dogs on the boardwalks which can be disruptive to others. Their primary concern is that
creating an OLRA will increase the number of dogs coming to the beach and therefore
increase the disruption caused by dogs on the boardwalk.
-
Two organizations have expressed environmental concerns over increased OLRAs. Heal
the Bay, an environmental organization dedicated to protecting the Santa Monica Bay,
has expressed concerns about the potential environmental problems of dog waste. The
second is the California Coastal Commission which issues permits necessary to alter the
physical characteristics of beaches in California. Chief among its concerns is potential
restrictions to beach access. An off-leash recreational area for dogs may draw the Coastal
Commissionis attention if it hindered full accessibility of the beach. The Coastal
Commission, however, has permitted dog beaches in other areas of California.
Finally, the Society for the Protection of Animal (SPCA) has raised concerns about un-
spayed dogs running free which may increase the potential for un-wanted litters.
Administrative opponents:
.-.
The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), animal control officials, lifeguards, and
employees of the Department of Beaches and Harbors have vested interests in resolving
questions over enforcement and access to beaches. These workers have the responsibility
of ensuring the safety and cleanliness of parks and beaches. At the present time, the
LAPD assigns 30 officers a day to beach detail in the summer months. While the officers
respond to many different complaints, they must also address those concerning dogs on
local beaches. None ofthese groups are anxious to police beaches or parks for dogs,
resolve disputes over dog-related matters, or handle problems with dog defecation. For
example, in a report to the Hermosa Beach city council, Chief Gary Crum of the Los
Angeles County Fire Department Lifeguards said that they were opposed to the idea of
allowing dogs on the beach because of sanitation concerns over fecal matter on the beach
and the need to enforce pooper scooper laws. Beach authorities also voiced concerns
because beach cleaning machines are not designed to pick up all feces left on the beach.
Consequently, the operators of the machines would be exposed to fecal material when
cleaning the machines and disposing of the collected waste.
.........
Overcoming stakeholder concerns:
This list of stakeholders opposing OLRAs presents significant obstacles to the allocation
of more open space to dog owners. At first, it appears to be a Herculean task to overcome
them. Taking a step back, however, the opposition to OLRAs stems either from a lack of
knowledge of the facts or a lack of creativity in the design of policies that can overcome
the concerns expressed by all stakeholders. It is important to return to the fundamental
problem: dog owners and their pets are provided significantly fewer recreational
opportunities compared to other users of Los Angeles parks. Reasoned policies for the
allocation of recreational space may overcome these impediments.
Correcting Misinformation:
Much of the opposition to off leash recreational areas stems from misplaced fears
concerning dogs. Consequently, clarification and information provision can significantly
..........
reduce opposition from certain stakeholders. Two areas are particularly prone to
misplaced fears: the dangers of dog bites and problems emanating from dog feces.
Dog Bites. A fear of an increased number of dog bites or other incidences is a major
impediment to acceptance of off-leash areas. The evidence from existing areas, however,
show that this fear is misplaced. A report by Hermosa Beach city staff studied several
areas that allowed dogs on the beach: Huntington, Newport, Del Mar, Cardiff, Carmel,
Laguna Beach, Pismo Beach, and San Diego. Only Huntington and Del Mar reported any
instances of dog bites, and these cities only reported a small number of incidences (under
five). In contrast, six of the eight cities reported no incidents or confrontations at all.
Further evidence that this fear is unwarranted is that the new Westminster dog park has
had no reports of dog bites since it opened. This successful record is largely due to the
significant self-policing capabilities of community groups like FREEPLA Y. Those who
fear increased incidences of dog bites apparently ignore the important role of peer
pressure in protecting against unpleasant confrontations. Finally, to the extent that
OLRAs confine dogs to spaces under community supervision, dogs are less likely to
become involved in confrontations than if they are roaming free in other open space
areas.
-
-
Health Risks from Dog Feces. The City of Los Angeles has raised concerns over the
possible transmission of diseases through dog feces left in off-leash areas. The Chief
Legislative Analyst of Los Angeles compiled a list twenty diseases that could possibly be
transmitted by dogs. While all dogs are subject to gastrointestinal and external parasitism,
the city reports that only humans with particularly weak immune systems such as AIDs
patients and young children stand any significant chance of contracting diseases from
such dog-borne parasites.
Moreover, an analysis of the Legislative Analyst report by Dr. Ellie Goldstein, a leading
public health expert, has shown this list to be highly misleading. Many of the diseases
listed are not endemic to Los Angeles and many others are very rare. In his words, "it is
as likely that people will get any of these listed diseases from their pet dog as their
chance of getting hit by lighting." Based on this analysis Dr. Goldstein concludes that the
creation of new off-leash recreational areas pose minimal risks from a public health
perspective.
~
Pollution Risks from Dog Feces. In a 1996 letter to Councilmember Ruth Galanter Joel
Reynolds of the Natural Resources Defense Council argued that off-leash dog beaches
could result in the contamination of coastal waters. Clean water for bathers and other
beach users is certainly a high priority, and his concern is a valid one. Nevertheless, this
fear is clearly repudiated by the evidence: the ocean water off of existing southern
Californian dog beaches is not any more polluted than at other beaches.
The Southern California Coastal Water Research Project recently completed the most
extensive sampling of coastal water quality ever undertaken. This project collected
weekly samples from 307 sites from Point Conception to Mexico. Several ofthese sites were at existing dog beaches located at Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, and Coronado.
As seen in Table Two the recorded bacteria levels at each of these beaches were far
~
below all existing and proposed standards for water quality. Moreover, the water quality
at these beaches was comparable to nearby beaches that did not allow dogs.
--
Table Two
Average Recorded Levels of Pollution Indicators (per 100mL)
CITY Total Coliforms Fecal Coliforms Enterococci
HuntingtonRp~{' h 56.7 22.3 7.2
Laguna Beach 42.0 32.0 n/a
Coronado 28.0 4.5 I 4.0 I
State Standard 10,000 400 104
A major finding of the report is that the single largest contributor to elevated bacterial
levels in coastal waters is storm water and urban runoff emitted through storm drains.
Clearly, on-going and critical efforts to improve the water quality off of Southern
Californian beaches will be better spent attacking the main causes of this problem rather
than focusing on dogs that lead to no discernible increase in pollution levels.
-
Policv Options that Address Stakeholder Concerns:
The remaining concerns of stakeholders are both valid and important. Nevertheless, they
do not preclude serving the equally legitimate demands of dog owners because these
concerns may be addressed as additional open space is made available to dog owners.
Existing OLRAs throughout California provide a wealth of alternative techniques by dog
owners can gain access while protecting the recreational opportunities, safety, and well
being of other stakeholders:
. Make a provision in the city municipal code to allow dogs on the beach in early
morning and evening hours.
· Establish a permit system to allow only dogs with permits to be allowed on beach
areas.
. Have a community group sponsor the OLRA and require it to hold orientation classes
for owners and their dogs on how to use OLRAs.
. Establish a reporting system for people to report violations of rules at OLRAs.
. Establish a monitoring system to enforce the rules of the OLRA.
. Enact strong enforcement policies, such as fmes for failure to control a dog or failure
to clean up after a dog.
Each of these policies reduces risk by separating dogs into designated areas and by
maintaining controls over their behaviors. We will look at each concern individually,
examining how such policy designs can allay the concerns of stakeholders.
Overcoming the poop problems:
--
One of the strongest arguments against creating OLRAs is that they will become
unsanitary and unsightly because of urine and dog waste. While the risk of disease in
.......
quite small, the chance of infection is likely to be larger when the waste is not
immediately removed. In addition, there is no argument that dog feces on the ground is
smelly, unsightly, and unpleasant to be around.
--
The fact remains that dogs will create waste regardless of whether or not they are on a
leash. Thus the more important issue is fmding a way to ensure that waste is properly
disposed of in a timely fashion. A number of effective methods have been employed to
encourage and ensure that dog owners clean up after their pets: (l) mandatory
compliance on the part of dog owners to immediately remove dog waste from public
spaces; enforced either by the community group or through fines; (2) regularly scheduled
volunteer patrols to sweep the parks and beaches of all debris; and (3) conveniently
located trash cans and waste removal bags. The use of plastic bags, "pooper scoopers",
and trash cans are also effective means of dealing with the problem. As evidenced by the
Westminster dog park there is considerable social pressure for owners to clean up after
their dogs in an OLRA. This social pressure is not as concentrated in non-OLRA
designated open space.
.-
Irresponsible dog owners and liability concerns:
Concerns regarding liability are another significant obstacle that must be addressed to
facilitate the creation ofOLRAs. A city that is exposed to expensive law suits because of
injuries related to OLRAs is not likely to encourage their creation. Cities have,
nevertheless, found a number of ways to reduce their exposure to liability claims.
Claremont dealt with the issue by creating an ordinance, which states:
"The use of off-leash areas by a dog owner or other person having care,
custody or control of that shall constitute agreement by the dog owner and
the person having care, custody, or control of that dog toGa waiver
liability ofthe city, and his or her agreement to protect, indemnify, defend,
and hold harmless the city from any claim, injury, or damage arising from
or in connection with such use."
Alternatively, cities may rely on signage. By signage, one means "full and complete
signage, both advising visitors that the park is an off-leash area and that they use the area
at their own risk, and advising dog owners of their assumption ofliability and hold
harmless agreement.
FREEPLA Y, in their proposal for an OLRA addressed the issue of signage. In their
report, they stated that it is important for OLRAs to announce designated off-leash areas
so that the general public can then make an informed decision regarding access. "There
are three types of signs that may be required: regulatory, advisory and warning signs. The
choice of sign, its location and size is dependent on the information to be presented and
the uses for which it is designed. Advisory signs are necessary at every entry point to the
area and between one access point and another. Regulatory signs should detail relevant
regulations and corresponding fmes for non-compliance." The purpose of the signs is to
improve relations within the local community by emphasizing positive messages to
encourage responsible behavior of dog owners.
---
The concerns about irresponsible dog owners can yet again be mitigated by the presence
of a strong community group that helps maintain order. The social and community aspect
.....Ai.
ofOLRAs is actually a deterrent to irresponsible dog ownership. We contend that in
many ways the self-policing evident at the Westminster dog park is more effective that
external (city-run) policing. As one Westminster regular explained, "It is one thing to get
a ticket from an anonymous cop, it is another thing to get corrected at by my neighbor
who I have to see everyday."
-
Administrative Concerns:
The administrative concerns for the most part apparently stem from the belief that
OLRAs will require a significant amount of "new" work for the various government
agencies. It is certainly possible to think of ways to create an OLRA that would in fact
require a host of new work for the agencies. For example, a new OLRA that would
require regular replanting of grass would require significant on-going maintenance by
city staff A new OLRA in close proximity to other recreational activities would require
on-going administration by animal control officers, especially if clear and defmable
boundaries do not exist. It is clearly possible, however, to design new OLRAs in a way
that decreases these on going administrative costs. For example, an OLRA without grass
and away from competing recreational uses would decrease these on-going maintenance
costs.
--
A second administrative concern is the amount of start-up money an OLRA may require.
An OLRA requiring a new fence, significant new signage, and new trash cans is likely to
have significant start-up costs. As with maintenance costs, however, it is possible to
minimize these costs. For example, an OLRA located such that a new fence would not be
required to separate dogs and other recreational activities would be much less expensive.
~
The point is not that start-up costs and maintenance costs are irrelevant concerns. Instead
we argue that these costs can and should be minimized by the site selection process.
Criteria for new OLRAs:
Given the hopes of dog owners and the fears ofOLRA opponents, it is clear that a sound
decision must be based on criteria for new OLRAs that pay close attention to all
stakeholders. Moreover, given the significant opposition to OLRAs, we propose that
when accessing tradeoffs, greater weight should be accorded to the concerns of
opponents than the wishes of dog owners. Given the paucity of current OLRAs and
significant opposition, we believe that dog owners are or should be satisfied with any
increase in available open space. In short, we believe that overall the best site for a
new OLRA is one that minimizes the opposition and maximizes the feasibility of a
new OLRA actually being created. The analysis up to this point suggest the following
criteria are essential to choosing a successful site for an OLRA:
. Limit conflicting recreational uses. It appears that dual use for different
recreational purposes will be difficult to manage and maintain. It is, however,
feasible to consider some way of designating a site for off-leash exercise by hours
rather than a physical boundary. This selection criteria is designed to minimize
the fears about various types of "confrontations."
. Compatibility with surrounding land uses. It would be inappropriate to select
a site in close proximity to a major traffic thoroughfare for fear of dog safety. It
.........
would also be inappropriate to site a facility directly adjacent to homes. Again this
criteria helps mitigate fears about "confrontations," as well as dog behavior and
irresponsible owners.
. Accessibility. In order for a dog park to be utilized it must be accessible to dog
owners. Given the current under-allocation ofOLRA space dog owners will
accept some amount of travel to get to a new facility but attempts should be made
to minimize this travel time. In addition, to limit the fears of confrontations with
people outside the OLRA it is important to consider the availability of parking
adjacent to the OLRA.
. Strong community involvement and support. As the laundry list of fears
shows, an OLRA is more likely to be successful in an area that enjoys a large
amount of community support. Many of the concerns about dog behavior and
irresponsible owners can be addressed through the active involvement of a local
community group. In addition, a strong and active local organization can help
alleviate many of the concerns about dog waste. As evidenced by the Westminster
dog park, an effective local group can create significant pressure and social norms
towards responsible dog ownership.
. Start-up and maintenance costs. There are some costs associated with any
new OLRA. Since we are re-allocating existing open space for off-leash use and
given that many key stakeholders are opposed to OLRAs for administrative (cost)
reasons we should attempt to minimize the costs involved in the process. The
potential start-up costs include additional signage, trash cans, fencing, and water
hook-up if necessary. The potential on-going maintenance costs include; cleaning,
repairing fencing, replacing grass, patrolling by city staff A strong community
group can help reduce these costs. For example, donation and volunteer efforts
have contributed greatly to the construction and maintenance of Westminster
Park. In addition, proper site selection can reduce costs.
Beaches beat parks.
In an effort to narrow the focus we begin with a simple choice, park or beach area. Using
the identified criteria, there are clear advantages of beaches over parks. First, beaches
would have lower maintenance costs than parks. As evidenced by the Westminster
OLRA, dogs are very hard on grass, and this is compounded by the overuse of the park.
The beach sand is more resilient to the pounding of running dogs and therefore require
less regular maintenance.
-
.-
--
Second, many beaches appear to be under-utilized especially during the winter months. In
interviews, several Los Angeles County lifeguards indicated that even on weekends
during the winter it is rare to see a large number of people either playing or simply
relaxing on the sand part of the beach. Most of the activity is concentrated in the
boardwalk areas. There are so few people on some beaches that lifeguards estimate that
they only need to patrol small sections of the beach during winter months.
While beach use increases dramatically during the summer, there are still areas of
beaches where the potential conflict with other recreation activities is limited. Although it
is difficult to quantify comparative utilization of beaches over parks, several site visits
.
confirm that many beach areas, even on weekends, are underused. It is difficult to say the
same thing about park areas.
Third, we consider the existing land use of potential sites. From the perspective of dog
owners, a perfect OLRA is a wide open space where dogs can run free. Most dog owners
would also prefer an area that does not become muddy during rainy weather. Since a
grassy area can quickly become a mud field with overuse, the beach area seems to be a
more viable option. As one Venice area dog owner stated, "Sand I can brush off, mud
means a bath production. "
.-
Another clear advantage of beaches over parks is that picking up dog fecal matter is
physically easier on a beach than in a park. All of the existing OLRAs come equipped
with shovels and rakes that owners can use to clean up after their dogs. It is often quite
funny to observe owners contorting and digging into the park to pick up after their dog.
On a beach the soft sand makes clean up an easier task, almost like a cads litter box. The
sand also makes it possible for dog owners to scoop up dog urine which is impossible in a
park setting. While this may seem trivial, cleaning up dog waste is a significant concern
of OLRA opponents, the sand makes clean up easier for dog owners and therefore
increases the likelihood that it will happen.
Fourth and finally, we believe that beaches offer advantages in terms of accessibility. It is
important to remember the balance between accessibility for dog owners and protection
of homeowners. Most of the small park areas on the Westside are directly adjacent to
houses which increases the conflict between the two groups. Many of the beaches are a
distance from homes decreasing this conflict. Many beaches also have adjacent public
parking, which tends to be empty in the winter months. In contrast, most parks in Los
Angeles have very little parking available.
-
Given these factors we concentrate our analysis on comparing different beach areas as
potential sites for a new OLRA on the Westside.
And the winner is...
There are 23 distinct beach areas in the Los Angeles region (see Appendix A). In an
effort to narrow this number down, we begin by eliminating beaches that clearly fail one
of the identified criteria. Nine of these beaches clearly fail the accessibility criteria. Four
of these (Leo Carrillo, Nicholas Canyon, Zuma and Point Dume) require long drives on
the congested Pacific Coast Highway towards Malibu. Four ofthese beaches (Malaga
Cove, Abalone Cove, Point Fermin Lighthouse and Cabrillo) require long drives through
the winding roads of Palos Verdes peninsula, making them inaccessible. We eliminate
two additional beaches (Los Tunas and Topanga) on the accessibility criteria primarily
because they offer insufficient parking.
Six of these beaches (Santa Monica, Will Rogers, Manhattan, Hermosa, Redondo, and
Torrance) present significant conflicts with other recreational users. Much of the
recreational activities on these beaches actually takes place on the sand parts of the
beach. For example, there are more than 100 volleyball courts on Manhattan Beach. In
~
addition, five of these six beaches are surrounded by other incorporated cities, preventing
the city or county of Los Angeles from dictating the particular uses of these beaches.
This process of elimination leaves five candidate beaches: Venice Beach, Dockweiler,
Marina Jetty, Playa del Rey, and Motheris Beach. It is important to note that we are not
comparing these beaches to those eliminated above but to each other. Table Three
compares each ofthese areas using the criteria developed above. Table Four provides a
rank ordering of each of the prospective beaches. Note that a "I" equals the top score and
a "5" equals the bottom score in Table Four.
~
Table Three
Alternative Criteria Matrix
.-.
Beach Area Conflict Potential Compatible Land I Accessibility I Comml<
Use Involvel
Venice Beach Very popular and High traffic areas Very accessible to An OLRA tl
high traffic area around pier and Westside residents. has significa
especially in the pavilio n area are Parking is costly and community:
summer. inappropriate. in short supply but also elic:
during summertime. opposition.
- - -
Dockweiler Lightly used. Large Size of beach (wide Amp Ie street and The large OJ:
stretches are often and over 4 miles pay parking. But not space and p,
completely empty. long) indicates it particularly indicate that
could accommodate accessible to would be aCI
an OLRA while Westside residents. to OLRA ac
allowing competing The lack of]
uses elsewhere. near the are,
L suggests mil
oP-Rosition.
....a
.....
--
- Conflict Potential
Beach Area Compatible Land Accessibility Commt.
Use lnvolvel
-
Marina Jetty Little used by other The beach is Very accessible to Because of
. recreational comparatively small Westside residents. accessibility
activities. It is in and somewhat Parking is a would be ve
close proximity to narrow. It is also the potential problem, favorable fo:
Venice Beach which is fairly close to especially during supporters. ]
is highly used. many houses. Also summer. concerns Wil
there is a Tern homeownen
breeding program on
beach.
Motheris Beach This area is used Beach is surrounded Moderately Again acces;
primarily by two by hotels on three accessible to users. would lead t
rowing clubs to sides indicating a Pay parking only support by (
launch boats. A potential for backers.
potential conflict on conflict.
weekends.
--.,-
Playa del Rey Observation A small beach area Moderately Distance fro
indicates few other would concentrating accessible to Westside ill(
uses. impacts in a Westside users. Pay less support.
confined area. and street parking.
-
-
.
Table Four
Ranking Criteria Matrix
r Beach Area J Conflict I Compatible Accessibility Community Lcosts J
Potential I land use involvement
- - ]
Venice Beach 5 5 1 1 5
-
Dockweiler 1 1 4 3 1
- [ I
Marina JettY 4 3 2 2 3
Motheris 3 4 3 4 4
Beach
~a del Rej,.=J 2 2 5 5 2
The results of these tables indicate that Dockweiler beach best fits our identified criteria
for a new OLRA. Dockweiler scored highest (a score of one) on three of the five criteria
(Conflict potential, Compatible use and Costs). Dockweiler scored low (4) on
accessibility and in the middle (3) on community involvement.
-.
Given that the proponents of OLRAs must overcome significant opposition, Dockweiler
is clearly the best choice. It is far from potential homeowner and has limited alternative
recreational users, minimizing potential conflicts. The existing fenced area and high
number of trash cans indicate low start-up and maintenance costs. What Dockweiler loses
in terms of accessibility it gains in terms of size and available parking.
-
A potential second choice is Playa del Rey, which ranked second on three out offive
categories, but lowest on community involvement and accessibility. It scored low in these
areas mainly because it is closer to housing and smaller than Dockweiler and provides
less parking.
Marina Jetty and Motheris Beach scored in the middle to bottom (mainly 3is and 4is) on
all the criteria. They are both small and pose have significant potential of conflict with
existing uses.
Finally, Venice Beach dramatically shows our weighting of the three main opposition
concerns (conflict potential, compatible land use, and costs) over the supporters hopes
(accessibility and community involvement). Venice is clearly the preference ofOLRA
users but is clearly less desirable from the perspective of other stakeholders.
Conclusion:
While more areas are needed, attempts to create them face significant political
opposition. The current allocation of space for off-leash dog use ignore high expressed
demand by dog owners on the Westside. We have developed criteria for choosing a new
OLRA that attempt to mitigate the concerns of opponents while attempting to serve some
of the hopes of dog owners. Until OLRA users clearly demonstrate their ability to
manage and self-police an off-leash beach area, it will be extremely difficult for these
users to get their first choice of sites. The example of Westminster Dog park is clearly a
.
step in the right direction. The Westminster users and FREEPLA Y provide an example of
how the process can work. By choosing a site that speaks directly to the concerns of
opponents FREEPLA Y and other community based organizations will have the
opportunity to again prove that OLRAs provide significant benefits to dog owners, their
pets, and most importantly, the community at large. With this added experience and track
record it is our belief that the ultimate goal ofFREEPLA Y of 1 acre ofOLRA per 100
dogs can some day become a reality.
Appendix A
Los Angeles County Beaches
(listed from north to south)
1. Leo Carrillo State Park
1. Nicholas Canyon Beach
1. Zuma Beach
1. Point Dume State Beach
.....
..... 1. Malibu Surfrider State Beach
1. Las Tunas State Beach
1. Topanga State Beach
1. Will Rogers State Beach
1. Santa Monica State Beach
1. Venice State Beach
1. Marina Jetty Beach
1. Motheris Beach (Marina)
1. Playa del Rey Beach
1. Dockweiler State Beach
1. Manhattan State Beach
1. Hermosa State Beach
1. Redondo State Beach
1. Torrance State Beach
. 1. Malaga Cove
1. Abalone Cove Beach
1. Point Fermin Lighthouse
1. Cabrillo Beach
1. Long Beach City Beach
A Times Editorial
Trend in parks benefits kids, dogs
@ St. Petersburg Times,
published July 8, 2001
-
Every dog has his day, they say. In Pinellas County, that suddenly seems to be the case
for dogs -- and also for their human playmates, children.
In a place where children and their needs get short shrift, and where dogs aren't supposed
to stick their wet noses out of their yards without a leash, there is lately a veritable
blizzard of proposals to create ways for both to have fun.
Plans for dog parks are popping up all over Pinellas. Dog parks are commonplace in other
parts of the country, but were not considered here until recently.
.-
If it is hard for you to imagine what a park for dogs would look like, picture this: A
fenced grassy area where leashes aren't required, a water fountain at the right height for
dogs, and benches where the humans can sit. Oh, and a receptacle for, uh, litter.
That's the apparent equivalent of heaven in a dog's world: a place where dogs can play
and run with their own kind, without a leash yanking them back or a human yelling at
them. People who have visited these parks in other places say the dogs have a great time
and that the human owners do a good job of keeping the parks clean.
Tarpon Springs and Largo have been working on plans for a dog park. Safety Harbor
already has one. Indian Rocks Beach built a dog park at its nature preserve. St. Petersburg
has two dog parks planned and a proposal for as many as eight more.
Bowzer's quality of life is definitely improving in Pinellas.
Things are getting better for kids, too. Look at the proliferation of new kinds of parks and
playgrounds for children.
~
~
North Pinellas' first public skateboard park opened in Dunedin in December, breaking
almost a taboo against such parks. For years, young skateboarders had asked for a place
to practice their sport. All they wanted, they said, was to be treated like kids who got
baseball fields and soccer fields and basketball courts. But communities looked at the
baggy clothing skateboarders wore and the damage to sidewalks and fountains done by
the skateboards, and shied away from the idea.
Today that is changing. Clearwater is planning a skate park on Drew Street across from
St. Petersburg College. Largo is in the design stage of a skate park at the Bayhead athletic
complex near Seminole Boulevard and Bay Drive. Last month Oldsmar fmally approved
a revised plan for a skate wave at Bicentennial Park after months of objections from
neighbors. Oldsmar is even working on plans for a BMX bicycle track at Canal Park.
The new attention to children's recreational needs may be inspired by the 2000 Census,
which found that the number of children in Pinellas County has grown. Some census
tracts have three times more children than they did in 1990. With that kind of growth,
provisions must be made for the varying needs, including recreational needs, of the
county's youngest residents.
There being no doggy census, we won't venture a guess about why public officials are
paying new attention to the recreational needs of our four-legged residents. They don't
even grow up to vote.
.-
Whatever the reasons, this is a good trend. Pinellas is getting more crowded, so its
residents need more places to play, more healthy ways to let off steam. Quality of life
does not have to go down when the population goes up
-
Home
......-
.
.
.
.
lof]
http://www.thedogpark.com/las _ cruces/index.html
INITIAL PROPOSAL FOR A CITY DOG PARK page: page 2
SUBMITTED TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT CITY OF LAS CRUCES
MISSION STATEMENT
To establish a fenced in, off-leash dog park within a city park where dogs and
their owners can exercise and socialize in a clean, safe environment without
infringing on the rights of other park users. To develop a beautiful, well
maintained space open to all dog lovers and friends who are willing to uphold
the rules and regulations. To view this park as a community project, in'
partnership with the City of Las Cruces, designed to satisfy the needs of dog
owners and non-dog owners alike.
BACKGROUND
What is a dog park? ,
A dog park is a place set aside, typically a fenced
in area within a public park, where dogs and their
owners can safely play and socialize with each
other. Often, these areas are managed by users in
conjunction with city officials.
Why do we need one?
Summary
As urban areas become more developed and
people become more isolated, it is important for
cities to nurture a sense of community. Many dog
owners use public parks to exercise their dogs.
Present city ordinances limit dogs in parks, and
leash laws, although difficult to enforce because
they have a low priority for law enforcement
agents, prohibit dogs from running off-leash. Dogs,
however, need a clean and safe place to play and
socialize without endangering or annoying people
and property. Well-exercised dogs create less of a
nuisance and make better neighbors, and dog
parks help keep dogs and people active by bringing
them out into the parks. For some dog owners,
specifically the elderly and disabled, a dog park
would allow the only opportunity for them and their
dogs to play and socialize with other people and
other dogs. Dog parks reach beyond social and
economic barriers and are a valid use of public
parkland. The establishment of dog parks promotes
responsible dog ownership, prevents infringement
on the rights of other park users, promotes public
health and safety, makes it easier to enforce leash
laws, allows dog owners a place to meet people
with common interests, and fosters a sense of
community.
Current Park Ordinances
As stated in the Las Cruces Municipal Codes, Chapter 7,
Article 1, Section 7-4: "All animals shall be kept under
restraint. While restrained on the premises of its owner or
responsible person, no tether less than 12 feet in length
shall be used, unless such length of tether will permit the
animal to scale a confining fence or leave the confines of
the property boundary. While restrained off the premises
under the immediate control of the owner or responsible
person, no lead greater than eight feet in length shall be
used." Any animal that "is running at large" constitutes a
public nuisance (Municipal Codes, Chapter 7, Article 1,
Section 7-1).
Demonstrate Need
Currently, the City of Las Cruces has no space where
dogs can legally run off-leash. The city leash law reads:
"All pets must be on a leash while being walked that is no
longer than 6 feeL" (Community Handbook, City of Las
Cruces). There are thousands of licensed dogs living in
Las Cruces and countless others who are not licensed. The
annual dog show has outgrown Apodaca Park. There are
no facilities for local dog clubs or agility trials.
''There is no doubt that dog owners deserve to share in
the 'park pie' with other special use groups like baseball,
soccer and tennis clubs. The recognized use of city and
county maintained dog parks is growing at an amazing
rate around the country, and these parks can provide an
excellent venue for providing information on low cost
spay/neuter and vaccination clinics, the microchip ID, dog
. training and other information related to keeping canines
happy and healthy. Dogs contribute immeasurably to their
family's quality of life, thus helping to foster a sense of
community for everyone. Making dog parks a priority
creates positive community spirit" (Marin Humane
Society, www.doQoark.com).
more> >
I The Dog Park J Interoet EXDlorer I Doa Thinas I Locate A Vet I
2/5/02 7:02 PM
pagl'l2
.
.
.
10f2
http://www.thedogpark.com/las_cruces/htmVpage2.html
INITIAL PROPOSAL FOR A CITY DOG PARK page 1 page 2
SUBMITTED TO THE PARKS AND RECREA liON DEPARTMENT CITY OF LAS CRUCES
RULES
(1) All dogs must be properly licensed
and vaccinated and wear a collar and ID
tags at all times.
(2) Dogs must be leashed prior to
entering and leaving the facility. Owners
should have a leash visible at all times.
(3) Owners must be in verbal control of
their dogs at all times to prevent
aggressive behavior. Dogs must never
be left unattended or out of sight. Dogs
who show aggression toward people or
other animals must be removed
immediately from the park. Dogs who
exhibit a history of aggressive behavior
will have their privileges revoked.
(4) Owners will be legally responsible
for damage or injury inflicted by their
dog(s).
(5) Owners are required to clean up and
dispose of all waste left by their dogs.
(6) Dogs in heat will not be allowed.
(7) Dogs must be at least 4 months old.
(8) Dogs must stay inside posted dog
park boundaries.
(9) Children must be under constant
supervision.
(10) Owners and visitors must comply
with posted rules and regulations.
,
CONCERNS (to be acldressed)
Noise
Parking/traffic
Environment
Liability
Maintenance
Supervision
Fighting/biting
Comparative Analysis
National
The numbers vary, but most statistics show well over 500 dog parks
nationwide.
Regional
Currently, there are 2 dog parks in the State of New Mexico:
Roosevelt Park in Albuquerque and Ortiz Park in Santa Fe.
Local
Currently,there is no space where dogs can legally run off-leash.
LAS CRUCES SITE EVALUATION
The following characteristics describe an ideal dog park site:
at least 2 acres
4-6 foot high fence with 6 inch buried boundary
perimeter marking
double-gated entry
adequate parking/disabled access
signage
rest rooms
shade
adequate drainage
drinking water for dogs and humans
benches/tables
pooper scooper stations
covered garbage cans/trash removal
2/1102 12:36 AM
pagt!2
http://www.thedogpark.com/las _ cruces/htmVpage2.html
Sites/Support Facilities
Primary / Sites acres location fence parking/ restrooms drinking
alternate available disabled water
. access
P South of X X X
Veterans
Park
P City X X
landGriggs
and Walnut
P Branigan X X * X X
Estate land
A Gallagher X X
Ponding area
A Hermosa X X X
Heights park
A Esslinger X X * X X X
Ponding area
(Burn Lake)
shade benches/ access to utility double drainage perimeter signage waste
tables service gated marking stations
* * X
X
* * X
X
X
X X
.
,
I
"'denotes partial availability
PREFERENCE
The preferred site is a portion of the Esslinger Ponding area at Burn Lake: this
site is already established as a primary recreational faCility; the site already has
a majority of the prerequisite characteristics for a dog park; the site
improvements could be implemented as part of the ongoing EI Molino Drain
Project and as part of the Burn Lake Master Plan; the site would allow for
expansion to accommodate other canine related activities.
Establishing/ Maintaining
Volunteer "park maintenance
days"
Corporate
Sponsorsh i p/Gra nts/Donations
User donations/ User fees
<<back
I The Dog Park Ilnterpet Explorer I Dog ThinQs I Locate A Vet I
.
20f2
2/1/02 12:36 AM
DogPark
.
.
.
10f13
l1f f'sR;2(2 '.
~~ J}~.4f)f
"~';~~1JW"."',:j@"'1'i\n-rr;""" '~jr:~l ~' ,;r'~'~ei
. .' .~"~ll(~~~M If; .. f-;~~P:'iJ; Ub ~irn
,;,;r.. ,.' ,., .. '''<;;;j ,..... . .,~ . " ,.;1
http://www.thedogsbestfriend.com/dogpark.htm
. fP"~~'k
. .~ ~'.~. ....f.' f, .,..... ~,":'.
",.,...;~~, ,'l'..,~' J:, :..~.'-I_';"~' ",'_,'
Watching your dog interact with other canines can turn an afternoon into a fascinating lesson in pack
behavior. The best place for this interaction is a "dog park." These parks are fenced areas set aside for
dogs to meet and play under the watchful eyes oftheir owners.
With more and more municipal parks prohibiting dogs off leash, it becomes more difficult to find a place
where your dog can stretch its legs canine style. Dog parks solve this problem. If your community has
not discovered the benefits of accommodating its canine residents, print out the proposal compiled by
DOG-PAC of Santa Barbara. It can be adapted for your community.
Position Paper
Prepared for the Special City Subcommittee on Dogs
October 1997
City of Santa Barbara, California
Prepared by:
DogPAC,SB
PO Box 3716
Santa Barbara, CA 93130
(805) 563-1773
Table of Contents
2/8/022:2] PM
DogPar~
.
.
.
2of13
http://www.thedogsbestfriend.com/dogpark.htm
Topk
Page Number
L Purpose
3
n. Overview
3
m D02 Ownership
A. Benefits
B. Why D02S Need Access to Public Open Space
4
4
4
IV. D02s in the Community
A. Open Space Plannin2
B. California City DOl! Ordinances
5
5
6
V. The Santa Barbara Community
7
VL Concerns with Off-leash D02 Areas
8
VB. Do!! PAC. SB Recommendations to the d02
Subcommittee
10
A. Historic Use
B. Demo!!raphic Data
C. Diversity of Location and Terrain
D. Appropriateness for Off-leash Exercise
E. Park Recommendations
10
11
12
14
14
vm.
Future Considerations
IX.
15
Endnotes
Good Manners
16
Pumose
The purpose of this position paper is to clarify the needs of responsible dog owners for a~s to public
open space, to improve the understanding of the benefits of such access, and to recommend ordinance
changes that reflect principles that accommodate responsible dog ownership.
Overview
The public open space management environment has changed dramatically in the last twenty years.
The range of recreational activities in which people are engaged has expanded while budgets and
resources have contracted. At the same time, conflict in public parks appears to have increased
although not necessarily because of a higher incidence of problems. Dog owners have not been immune
from these changes. Increased restrictions are being placed on their use of public open space.
The benerlts of pet ownership are becoming clearer as more studies and case histories become available.
Pets are now being recognized for their physical and mental health benefits, for their role as companions
and social facilitators, and in helping children learn responsibility and how to share.
The field of urban animal management has emerged to ensure that pets are appropriately managed
in the urban environment. The number and range of programs being developed and implemented
reflects increased community, professional, and academic interest in urban animal management.
There now exists a broader and more soundly based body of knowledge on which to make judgements
about managing domestic pets as weD as more effective ways of disseminating new ideas and knowledge.
That dogs should be allowed access to public open space is a basic premise of this position paper.
2/8/02 6:36 PM
DogPark'
.
.
.
3 of 13
http://www.thedogsbestfriend.com/dogpark.htm
As a principle we believe open space access should be incorporated into both urban animal management
strategies and open space/ recreation plans. In fact, such planning has already occurred in dozens of
cities in California. 2 Undeniably, problems exist, but It has been demonstrated that the benefJts outweigh
the disadvantages. Unduly restrictive access policies are inequitable and likely to be counter-productive
in managing conflicts and varying demands.
D02 Ownershin
Benefits
The benefJts of dog ownership are becoming clearer as more studies and case histories become available.
Dogs are now being recognized for their physical and mental health benefits, for their role as companions
and catalysts for human social interaction, and in helping children learn responsibility (Annual Review of
Public Health, 1996; Psychological Reports, 1996). For many single and elderly people a dog not only
provides companionship but often is the only source of home and personal security. Beyond this, dogs
playa vital role working in society in numerous ways such as assisting the handicapped and working for
the military, police departments, and search and rescue teams.
Why Dogs Need Access to Open Space
The benefJts of allowing dogs access to public open space are not self-evident and warrant closer
examination. It Is important to understand that they apply not only to dogs and their owners but also
to the wider community as weD as to those responsible for urban animal management.
The most obvious reason why dogs need access to public open space is because of their popularity.
Dog owners are a substantial group of park users: a conservative estimate Is that there are 3 almost
29,000 dog owners in the city of Santa Barbara and approximately 17,000 dogs. For the county, these
figures are considerably higher, with an estimated 71,000 dogs and 122,000 dog owners. Other groups -
skateboarders, lawn bowlers, and hang gliders, for example - have been given special consideration
in view of their unique park needs. The overwhelming numbers of dogs and dog owners would seem
to warrant specific consideration for them as weD.
The second reason has to do with the link between open space for dogs and promoting acceptable
behavior from dogs. Dogs need to be properly socialized In appropriate behavior (Canine Behavior, 1965).
They also need regular outings to reduce boredom and pent-up energy at home. Access to a park close to
home is the safest and most effective way to ensure that owners socialize their dogs and provide them with
on-going experiences in the outside world. This not only benefits the dog and its owner but also neighbors
who are affected by unacceptable behavior at home, other park and street users, and authorities responsible
for urban animal management.
Tbe third reason why dogs need access to public open space is for the positive effects it can have on
their owners. Owning a dog encourages people to exercise and visit their local park. Taking a dog out
has also been found to stimulate social interaction with other people (Journal of Nutrition and the
Elderly,1996).
Tbe fmal reason is that a balanced approach to accommodating dog owners in public open space may
achieve higher levels of compliance by dog owners with relevant laws. H dog owners perceive laws to
be unfair it may elicit a defiant rather than a compliant response from dog owners - they may ignore the
laws in protest. H, on the other hand, laws are perceived to be fair people will be more likely to voluntarily
comply. However, the impact ofthese programs can only be Umited without an access policy that is
perceived to be fair by dog owners.
Dogs in the Community
Open Space Planning
The entire subject of urban and suburban animal management is so new that only those cities
expanding into undeveloped land have an opportunity to take advantage of planning ideas that
incorporate recreational areas exclusively for dogs. Cities like Santa Barbara, with in-fill
development only, must look to more creative solutions within the boundaries of existing recreational
2/8/02 6:36 PM
DogPark
.
.
.
4 of 13
http://www.thedogsbesttriend.com/dogpark.htm
land. Several of Santa Barbara's neighboring communities have established leash-free parks or
leash-free areas within parks. The city of Santa Barbara, with its abundant parks, beaches, and trails
can surely find solutions that are equitable for aU that use these open spaces.
To this end, creating leash-free open spaces for responsible owners and their dogs In existing recreational
areas should be based upon the foUowing premises:
b""
0" That dog owners are as legitimate as any other special interest group, and that their needs
should be taken as an integral part of the city's decision making process.
(5~; That integrating dog activities with other park users allows for a more efficient and equitable
distribution of resources, whereas separation and restrictions concentrate potential conflicts into
isolated areas, increasing the IikeUhood of overuse.
<2-;.. That dogs allowed to exercise off-leash - running with other dogs, catching a ball, chasing a
Frisbee, or working at obedience training - are happier and healthier dogs.
()~, That exercised dogs make better next door neighbors than under-exercised dogs. Puppies
and dogs that get enough exercise through vigorous play are less likely to create a nuisance,
bark excessively, destroy property, or learn anti-social behavior.
bO"
0" That in an era when people are often reluctant or afraid to approach or converse with a
stranger, off-leash exercise areas bring people together and create a greater sense of
community.
(;51.. That unduly restrictive access poUcies are Inequitable and likely to be counterproductive In
managing conflicts between law enforcement and the large number of citizens who own dogs.
Further, punitive leash laws generally result In non-compUance.1f dog owners perceive an
ordinance to be harsh or unfair, it may elicit a defiant rather than a compliant response. On
the other hand, if dog owners understand the reasons for restrictions relating to access and
accept them as reasonable, they will be more likely to comply voluntarily.
()~ That access to a public park or beach close to home is the safest and most effective way to
ensure that owners socialize their dogs and provide them with on-going experiences in the
outside world.
o-i'J'~
0" That dogs provide a measure of security, both perceived and real, to single women and
elderly or handicapped persons who most often fall victim to crime in parks.
California City Dog Ordinances
Santa Barbara's municipal code currently states that "No dog Is permitted upon a street or other public
place unless on a leash not In excess of six (6) feet in length and under the immediate care and control
of the owner or other person having the care and custody thereof." (Section 6.08.020(B).
Several California cities have amended their ordinances to aUow for off-leash areas by exempting
such areas from leash law requirements where the dog is under the control of the owner. The task
of designating those parks which are off-leash, and creating rules for such areas, is left to the
Department administrating the municipality's parks, or to the City Council by resolution.
For example, Santa Monica's ordinance states that dogs which are properly tagged and licensed
are allowed, without a leash, "on any duly designated off-leash public park area... if the dog is In
the custody and control of a competent person." (Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.04.150).
Santa Monica's general restriction against dogs in many locations In that city Includes an exemption
for" dogs in any area designated by Resolution of the City Council for use by dogs if the person having
custody or control of the dog is in compliance with posted rules governing the use of the designated
area." (Santa Monica Municipal Code section 4.04.160).
2/8/02 6:36 PM
DogPark
.
.
.
5 of 13
http://www.thedogsbestfriend.comldogpark.htm
The city of Davis foDows a similar approach. Its Code defines a dog "at large" to be a "dog off
the premises of its owner and not under restraint by leash controUed by the owner or custodian
of such dog." The section includes the foDowing exception: "Dogs are not 'at large'... when they
are in public areas expressly provided and designated for exercise; provided, they remain under
the control or direction of their owner or custodian." (City of Davis Municipal Code section 4-9).
The off-leash areas are typicaDy governed by posted regulations such as:
- Dogs shaD be under voice control
- Owners or custodians shaD carry a leash
- Aggressive dogs are not aDowed and/or must be leashed
- Dogs shaD not dig or disturb park resources
- Feees shaD be immediately removed.
Other cities take a more comprehensive approach by way of ordinance. Although the actual designation
of those parks which shaD be off-leash is accomplished by administrative decision or resolution, some
of the rules regulating those areas are set forth in the ordinance itself.
For example, in 1996 the city of Claremont added an ordinance establishing off-leash areas which includes
specific rules as weD as a waiver of liability. That ordinance requires that
- Dogs must be under the care, custody, and control of a person age 13 or older;
- No person may have more than two dogs in the off.leash area at one time;
- AU dogs must be under voice. control;
- Dogs which are sick, in heat, or aggressive are not permitted;
- Persons in charge of the dog shaD quiet them if they bark;
- Persons in charge of the dog shaD "promptly" remove litter (Claremont Ordinance
11.02.125)
In many cities, dog owners police themselves, sometimes through official citizens groups. The Sepulveda
Dam Recreation Area, in Los Angeles, for example, is policed by the Dog Advisory Group, whose members
wear red tee-shirts and patrol the park for violations. It also organizes dog-doo clean up days. A similar
organization helps maintain the Pt. Isabel dog park in Alameda County.
The Santa Barbara Community
Santa Barbara is a unique community known not only for its moderate climate and beauty but also for
the diversity of cultures, races, languages, resources, and opportunities. This city is a natural draw for
those who love outdoor recreation, and for those who own dogs, it's ideal. Beyond this, the citizens of
Santa Barbara are committed to the humane treatment of animals, dogs and cats especiaDy, in a way
that is rivaled by few other communities. The City/County Animal Shelter is a virtual "no-kill" shelter
staffed by volunteers that is now being studied by communities around the country. In addition,
money generated through dozens of veterinary facilities, grooming shops, pet supply houses, grocery
stores, boarding faciIities, and obedience schools Is in the millions.
Concerns with Off-leash Dog Areas
There are a number of potential concerns with the establishment of off-leash areas for dogs in our
community. In this section, a number ofthese concerns are considered.
2/8/02 6:36 PM
DogPark'
.
.
.
6 of 13
http://www.thedogsbestfriend.com/dogpark.htm
Dogs are a danger to people using the park. Dog attacks are the most serious potential problem and
there is always a great deal of interest in the issue. Though attacks can occur against humans, other
dogs, and other animals, most dogs don't bite people or other dogs (Domestic Dog, 1995; Canine Behill'ior,
1965). Dog attacks are more likely to occur in the dog owner's home or immediate vicinity than they are
in public open space. In one study of aggression in dogs it was found that from 65% to 93% of dog
attacks occurred in or near the dog owner's home (poderbercek & Blackshaw, 1990). According to the
Joumal of the American MedicalAssociation (January 22,1997), the vast majority of dog bites occur
on a dog's territory. When dogs bite people who are ofTthe dog's property, it is usualiy the result of
a lack of supervision or ignorance on the part of the owner. Attacks that occur on private property
typically happen when a dominant, protective, or Injured dog is not adequately supervised. These
triggers are not present when a dog is in the neutral territory of a public park.
Without wanting to underrate the seriousness of dog attacks in either the private home or public open
space, they need to be kept in perspective. People are concerned about dog attacks but the extent to
which the mass media amplify isolated problems out of proportion needs to be questioned. We need to
understand how the triggers to aggression vary in ditTerent settings and avoid simplistic management
mechanisms.
. Dogfeces are unsightly and a health hazard. This is a fact. However, it must be recognized that
dogs defecate whether or not they are on a leash. Dog PAC Is committed to changing the attitude
of those who allow their dogs to defecate on public property without picking-up afterward. Further,
Dog PAC, S13 supports ordinances that would apply onerous fmes to this kind of irresponsible behavior.
· Free-running dogs will interfere with those using the parks for other recreational activitks. Chlidren's
playground areas must remain dog free. Picnic areas must remain "dogs on leash only." Dog PAC
supports additional sign age and enforcement of these stipulations. Beyond this, conflicting use of
recreational areas has not been a significant problem in the past; nor should it be in the future -
responsible dog owners are vigilant about potential conflicts and use common sense In this regard.
.
Dogs are inherently dangerous to Santa Barbara park wildlife. Human use, park maintenance staff
and their machinery, and development of open park space are likely to have as much or more impact
on wildlife than dogs.
.
Some off-leash areas are a safety hazardfor the dog. The intent of off-leash privileges is to provide
free running areas for dogs that are "under controL" There are no perfect solutions to prevent accidents
for adult recreational users or dogs, though dog safety should be a consideration when choosing
appropriate parks.
.
The City of Santa Barbara may be Iioble for negative incidents involving dogs. The City is legitimately
concerned that legalizing the use of pubUc property for ofT-leash recreation creates the risk of pubOe
liability. The experience of other municipalities indicates, however, that the risk is minimaL For
example, the Point Isabel Regional Shoreline is a 21 acre, ofT-leash park located at the border ofthe
cities of Berkeley and Richmond, California. According to the park supervisor, the park averages
730,000 dog visitors each year. The attomey for the East Bay Regional Park District reports that the
district has had no claims and has not been named in any litigation regarding dogs during the seven
years he has been attomey for the agency.
Laguna Beach has had ofT-leash areas for over two years with no claims. The Sepulveda Dam Basin, which is
the largest off-leash area in Los Angeles, also reports no claims or Utigation over dog incidents.
At least one reason for the lack of claims is legal: the "dangerous condition" immunity from public liability
probably reUevesthe public agency of liability, especially for the acts of third parties using the public property
(Gov't. Code section 830 et. seq.; Jones v. Czapkav (1960) 182 CaLApp.2d 192).
Nevertheless, the City should take precautions to protect itself (and the taxpayers) from potential liability. There
are several ways to limit liability, including:
2/8/02 6:36 PM
DogPark
.
.
.
7 of 13
http://www.thedogsbesttiiend.comldogparlc.htm
A. Express assumption of liability and indemnifICation by users of the off-leash areas
This can be accomplished by conditioning the issuance of dog licenses on an express indemnification
agreement, or by a "permissive use" ordinance change. The city of Claremont chose the latter approach.
Its off-leash ordinance states in part:
"The use of an off-leash area by a dog owner or other person having care, custody, or control of that shall
constitute agreement by the dog owner and the person having care, custody, or control of that dog to... a
waiver of liability of the city, and his or her agreement to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
city from any claim, inJury, or damage arising from or in connection with such use." (City of Claremont
Ordinance 1l.02.125(E).)
B. Signage: FuU and complete signage, both advising visitors that the park is an omeash area and that
they use the area at their own risk, and advising dog owners of their assumption of liability and hold
harmless agreement.
C. Insurance: Purchase a commercial insurance policy specifically protecting the City from dog-related
claims.
Dog PAC, SB Recommendations to the Dog Subcommittee
Dog PAC proposes that ordinance changes be made that designate specific parks and public areas as
appropriate for off-leash exercise and training of dogs. The recommendation of particular parks is based
on four criteria: historic use, demographic data, diversity of location and terrain, and appropriateness of
individual spaces for omeash dogs.
Historic Use
Dog owners have enjoyed Santa Barbara's parks and beaches for generations, often exercising and training
their dogs without leashes in these areas. One valuable byproduct of this fact is that through their consistent
Wle dog owners have established areas where the off-leash exercise of dogs is normative. Through a long
process oftrial and error, dog owners have learned which locations are appropriate - and which are not - for
off-leash dog exercise.
. Factors contributing to the establishment of "dog appropriate" areas are pubUc safety, dog safety, the
accommodation of multiple user populations, the variety ofterrains, and population density. For example,
due to heavy equestrian use and an abundance of snakes, dog owners have typically not exercised their
dogs at Parma Park. Similarly, locations such as Hale Park are too remote for the bulk of dog owners in
Santa Barbara and parks with high-use recreational or playground facilities are not viewed as ideal for dog
exercise. Thus, there are many lessons to be learned from the historic dog use patterns of Santa Barbara's
pubUc areas. Tbese lessons sbould be treated as a resource in determining wbicb parks are appropriate for
off-leash exercise of dogs. Doing so will facilitate a smooth transition of public areas and make public
education efforts easier, introducing minimal changes in the park system in generaL
In a survey of Dog PAC members, such historic use data were collected. Members were asked to list the
parks where they most often took their dogs for off-leash training, socialization, and exercise. It is important
to note that while these data are indicative of Dog PAC members, they may not be generalizeable to the entire
dog population. Table 1 summarizes the responses.
Table 1. The top 20 city of SantJJ Barbara public parks and areas most frequently reported as used for
off-leash exercise of dogs {data from survey of Dog PAC members].
Name of Public Area
Ranking of Use of Area
2/8/02 6:36 PM
DogPark.
http://www.thedogsbestfriend.comldogpark.htm
Arroyo Burro Beach 1
. Douglas Family Preserve 2
MissionIRose Garden 3
Mackensie Park 4
Las Positas Park 5
Area Hiking Trails 6
Own Neighborhood 7
Oak Park 8
Leadbetter Beach 9
La Mesa Park 10
Shoreline Park 11
Alameda 12
Mesa Lane Steps 13
Andree Clark Bird Refuge 14
East Beach 15
. Chase Palm Park 16
Franceschi Park 17
Parma Park 18
Sunflower Park 19
Pershing Park 20
Demographic Data.
The American Veterinary Medical AssoCiation calculates that 32% of California households have dogs.
A recent Gallup poD found that 45% of homes in the United States have dogs, with over half of the
households in the most heavDy dog populated states of Texas and California having at least one dog.
Thus, estimates of the percentage of households with dogs in California range from approximately one-third
to one-half. Combining these estimates with U.S. Census data, this translates to a conservative estimate
of approximately 122,000 dog owners in Santa Barbara county. 4 The estimated number of dog owners in t
he city of Santa Barbara is 29,000, with approximately 17,000 dogs currently Uving within the city limits.
Such large numbers of dogs and dog owners require an open space plan that recognizes the potential
effect of a large number of dogs and accommodates their special needs appropriately. Simply put, dog
owners need open space for off-leash dog exercise in a fair proportion to their numbers: this would translate
to between 32% and 50% (between 18 and 28 of the city's 55 parks) of Santa Barbara's parks and open spaces.
.
Diversity of Location and Terrain.
8 of 13
2/8/02 6:36 PM
DogPark
.
.
.
9 of I3
http://www.thedogsbestfriend.com/dogpark.htm
Among the considerations that must be taken into account when determining which parks and public
areas are to be designated for the legal off-leash exercise of dogs are the diversity of location and
terrain. Diversifying the locations of ofT-leash parks helps to guard against dog overcrowding, to lessen
the impact of vehicle parking problems, and to enable more members ofthe community to access a park
within a reasonable distance of their own home. Such considerations are particularly important to the
elderly and to less mobile citizens.
Diversity of terrain is important to dogs and to dog owners. AU dogs do not have the same needs. For
example, dogs bred to run (e.g., Greyhounds) need large open spaces to do so. Dogs who are naturally
water dogs (e.g., Golden Retrievers) need access to water in order to get proper exercise. In addition,
dog owners themselves have varying abilities to enjoy areas that may prove physically challenging to
access.
It is not reasonable to expect that aU ofthese concerns - convenient access, diversity of locations,
and variety ofterrain - can be met perfectly for all community residents. However, a strategy that
embraces the principles behind these types of access can go a long way toward accommodating the
vast majority of dog oWners.
One effective strategy for accommodating dog owners' needs is to attempt to provide a hierarchy of
open space options that provides dogs and their owners daily, regulllr, and occasional use areas for
ofT-leash dog exercise and training. By doing so, we can take a creative approach toward providing
park and pubUc area access that considers the needs of dog owners.
Daily opportunities should be scattered throughout the community. Daily areas are those that provide
everyone the opportunity to access an open, public space within a reasonable walldng distance from
one's home. Demographic data must be considered in choosing such areas in order to ensure that such
parks are readily accessible regardless of where one lives.
Parks providing regulllr opportunities may be spread more widely apart, perhaps within a short drive or
long walk from one's residence. Such areas are intended to accommodate dogs with special needs (e.g.,
especially active or water dogs that require large open areas or water access) that mayor may not be
readily available in one's own neighborhood. In this way, regular areas accommodate a diversity of
terrains that may be required for different breeds and types of dogs.
Occasional use areas are non-typical areas where the needs of dogs and dog owners are more heavily
catered to. Such areas might boast of specific resources (e.g., dog wash facilities) that accommodate
dogs and ofTer special services to dog owners. These areas provide dog owners with quite specific
facilities for dogs that accommodate large dog populations.
In order to identify the distribution of dogs in Santa Barbara, dog registration data were analyzed and
sorted by the geographic indicator of postal zip codes. Such an analysis provides a reasonably accurate
overview of dog population by geographic location which, in turn, suggests where off-leash parks
should be located in order to provide dog owners park access within a reasonable distance of
their homes. Figure I summarizes these fmdings.
Figure 1. Percent of Dog Population by Zip Code. [source: City of Santa Barbara, Animal Control data]
93105
(27%)
93108
(4%)
1 [county land too)
2/8/02 6:36 PM
DogPark
.
.
.
10 of 13
http://www.thedogsbestfriend.com/dogpark.htm
93110 -
(3%)
93101 93103
(26%) (21%)
[county land too]
93109
(19%)
Figure I reveals that dog ownership is relatively evenly distributed, especiaUy when considering the size
ofthe postal zip code areas. Tbe apparent exception to this is in the downtown area (zip code 9310 1),
where there is a large concentration of dogs in a relatively smaIl area. In addition, it is worth noting that
3 of the 4 most heavily populated zip codes border the beach. Tbese data suggest that (a) off-leash dog
areas should be spread throughout the city in order to provide space for dog owners living in all areas
and (b) a large proportion of dog owners could benefit from off-leash, beachfront open spaces.
Appropriateness for Off-leash Exercise
All spaces are not created equal Not all parks and public spaces are appropriate for dogs without a
leash. Consideration for traditional park use and safety to dogs are factors that make certain areas
generaUy inappropriate for dogs without a leash. For example, the Andree Clark Bird Refuge is not
an appropriate l{K:ation for ofT-leash dogs, given the potential conflict with birds. As already mentioned,
Parma Park might not be the best choice for off-leash dogs in view of the heavy equestrian traffic there.
Such considerations should be taken into account when selecting parks and open spaces that are
dog-appropriate.
Specific Park Recommendations
Based on historic use, appropriateness for off-leash exercise, demographic data, and diversity of l{K:ation
and terrain, the following public areas are recommended as appropriate for off-leash exercise and training
of dogs in Santa Barbara.
A. Parks and areas recommended as appropriate for off-leash dogs:
2/8/02 6:36 PM
DogPark
~
.
.
.
11 oft3
http://www.thedogsbestfriend.com/dogpark.htm
1000 Steps
Alameda Park (south half)
All hiking trails
Bohnett Park
Douglas Family Preserve
East Beach
Franceschi Park
Hilda Ray
Honda Valley Park
La Mesa Park
Mackenzie Park
Mesa Lane Steps
Mission I Rose Garden Park
Oak Park
Ortega Park
Pershing Park
Rattlesnake Canyon
San Roque Park
Shoreline Park
Skotleld Park
Steven's Park
Thornbury Park
Beach Area: the section of beach from the bottom of
the steps of park to that point where the beach meets
county property at Arroyo Burro Beach
B. Parks and areas recommended as inappropriate for off-leash dogs:
Alameda Park (north half)
Alice Keck Park Memorial Garden
Ambassador Park
Andree Clark Bird Reftige
Cabrillo Ball Field I Pavilion
Chase Palm Park
De La Guerra Plaza
Dwight Murphy Field
Eastside Neighborhood Park
Equestrian Circle
Escondido
Gould Park
Hidden Valley
La Coronilla
Laurel Canyon
Leadbetter Beach
Loma Media
Los Robles Area
Morton Bay Fig Tree
Orpet
Parma Park
Pilgrim Terrace
Rancheria Garden
Spencer Adams
Storke Plaza
Sunflower Park
Sylvan
Vera Cruz
West Beach
Willowglen
Recommendations as to which specific places be established as legal, off-leash dog exercise areas are
based on historic use, demographics, diversity of location and terrain, and appropriateness. Considering
these factors enables us to take into account present park use patterns, the needs of dog owners, the
needs of those who may not want dogs off-leash In parks, and the safety of dogs. Establishing these
off-leash areas serves all members ofthe community by (a) accommodating dog owners in an evenhanded
and balanced manner and (b) leaving the vast majority of parks with leash requirements, in consideration of
those why may have a preference for leashed dogs.
It should be noted that although Dog PAC, SB offers the above list of parks as those appropriate for off-leash
dogs, it is not a list of our own members' preferences. Reconciling the list of appropriate parks with those
where our members most frequently take their dogs will show that we have attempted not to demonstrate
biases in our choice of parks. Instead, as stated, areas recommended as appropriate for off-leash exercise
are based on which parks best address the needs ofthe community as a whole.
Future Considerations
The following issues are agenda items for future consideration for Dog PAC and this subcommittee:
· Dog PAC volunteer services - dog waste cleanup efforts in parks
2/8/02 6:36 PM
DogParlt
"
.
.
.
12ofl3
http://www.thedogsbestfriend.com/dogpark..htm
. Public Education - consumer education regarding breeding, spay and neuter programs, and
responsible dog ownership
. Dog licensing - currently only 25% of dogs in Santa Barbara are licensed
· In-service training for Animal Control - community relations resources
· Control irresponsible, commercial breeding practices and sales
Endnotes
1. This document draws from text and information from A Guide to Integrating Domestic Pets into
New Residential Development, by Planning & Development Consultants Harlock Jackson Pry Ltd.,
availoble through PETNET at http://www.oetnet.com.au/
2. For instance, some ofthe many places that have off-leash areas for dogs in California are: San
Diego, Laguna Beach, Costa Mesa, Los Angeles, Venice, Napa, Sonoma, Berkeley, Santa Monica,
St. Helen&, Huntington Beach, Davis, Laguna Niguel, Claremont, Redondo Beacb, Redwood City,
Santa Clara, Foster City, and San Francisco. Other California cities witb such parks are available
from Dog PAC on request.
3. The foDowing data were used in tbe estimation of dog and dog owner populations for tbe city and
county of Santa Barbara:
Santa Barbara county
(a) Population: 381,401 [source: 1996 US Census data]
(b) Average Housebold Size: 2.84 [source: 1990 US Census data]
(c) Number of Housebolds: 134,296 [source: calculation; (a I b)
(d) % ofbouseholds with dogs: 32%[source: American Veterinary Medical Association. Note:
this is the more conservative of 2 reliable estimates; a Gallup poD estimated that over 50%
ofhousebolds in California bave at least one dog.]
(e) Number of households with dogs: 42,975 [source: calculation; (c * d)]
(I) Number of dog owners: 122,049 [source: calculation; (b * e)]
(g) Number of dogs per dog-owning housebold: 1~65 [source: City of Santa Barbara Animal
Control data = 1.33; American Veterinary Medical Association = 1.96; tbe mean ofthese
two measures was taken, although the A VMA estimate is likely much more reliable, due
to tbe sampling procedure. This yields a more conservative estimate, calculated as (1.33 + 1.96) I 2]
(h) Number of dogs: 70,909 [source: calculation; (e * g)]
The City of Santa Barbara
(a) Population: 90,200 (source: Santa Barbara News-Press}
(b) Average Household Size: 2.84 [source: 1990 US Census data]
(c) Number of Households: 31,761 [source: calculation; (a I b)]
(d) % of households witb dogs: 32% - [source: American Veterinary Medical Association. Note:
this is the more conservative of 2 reliable estimates; a Gallup poD estimated tbat over 50%
ofhousebolds in California bave at least one dog.]
(e) Number of households with dogs: 10,164 [source: calculation; (c * d)]
(I) Number of dog owners: 28,866 [source: calculation; (b * e)]
(g) Number of dogs per dog-owning bousehold: 1.65 [source: City of Santa Barbara Animal Control
data = 1.33; American Veterinary Medical Association = 1.96; tbe mean oftbese two measures
was taken, although the A VMA estimate is likely much more reliable, due to the sampling procedure.
This yields a more conservative estimate, calculated as (1.33 + 1.96) I 2]
(h) Number of dogs: 16,771 [source: calculation; (e * g)]
4. Please refer to endnote 3 for these and otber demograpbic data.
2/8/02 6:36 PM
DogPas~ ~
.
.
.
I3 of I3
http://www.thedogsbestfriend.comldogpark.htm
GOOD MANNERS: TIPS FOR DOG
PARK ENTHUSIASTS
...No choke chains; keep a buckle coDar and tags on your dog before releasing it into enclosure.
...Bring fresh water and a drinking bowL
...Take along plastic dog-doo bags and pick up after your dog.
...Bring some old towels to cover the car seat after the park.
Enjoy!
For more on dog parks, visit these sites:
http://www.inch.com/-doQs/howto.html
http://www.doQPark.com/
http://www.doafriendlv.com/Parks/doQParks.htm
http://cnn.com/US/9804/30/frinae/doa.plaVQround/
http://www.doQinfomat.com/doaparks.htm
http://www.mindsprina.com/-patmar/index.htm
http://www.inch.com/-doas/runs.html
http://www.users.uswest.netl-ibeede/Minneapolis.htm
http://www.ur-net.com/aadoQs/
http://www.petnet.com.au/openspace/frontis.html
On a warm summer day, the temperature inside your car co
~. 'H~~.~11Ilffid~~:~r{1 J!:'jJ~k~l '~~S;q~~'l
animation (c) Camilla Eriksson
2/8/026:36 PM
Public Open Space and Dogs
..
http://www.petnet.com.aulopenspace/4.1.2.html
-i"
.
.
.
lof2
Public Open Space and Dogs
4.1.2 Aggression towards humans and other animals
Dog attacks are the most serious potential problem and there is always a great deal of interest in the
issue. Attacks can occur against humans, other dogs and other animals. Most dogs don't bite people or
other dogs. Those that do are either frightened, dominant, protective or possessive. Attacks against
wildlife is part of the predatory instinct natural to all dogs.
Without wanting to underrate the seriousness of dog attacks in either the private home or public open
space, they need to be kept in perspective. People are concerned about dog attacks but the extent to
which the mass media amplifies isolated problems out of proportion needs to be questioned. We need to
understand how the triggers to aggression vary in different settings and avoid simplistic management
mechanisms. For example very few dogs that attack livestock are dangerous to people. The two
behaviours, although having a similar expression have different causes (Jennens 1992).
It would seem dog attacks are more likely to occur in the dog owner's home or immediate vicinity than
they are in public open space. In one study of aggression in dogs it was found that from 65% to 93% of
dog attacks occurred in or near the dog owner's home (poderbercek and Blackshaw, 1990). Similarly, the
Victoria Injury Surveillance System (VISS) has issued several reports on injuries caused by animals. As
of May, 1989 the VISS database had recorded a total of266 injuries. Forty percent ofthe bites occurred
in the home or the home yard and another 22% occurred in the yard of another home. Sixteen percent
occurred in public places and place of bite was not stated in 22% of cases. Attacks on private property
frequently happen when a dominant, protective or injured dog is not adequately supervised with children
and visitors. These triggers are not present when a dog is in the neutral territory of a public park.
Another concern is public liability. Undoubtedly, this is the most far reaching confrontation between park
managers and the legal system today, e.g. for injuries or damage that occur on play equipment, from
damaged park infrastructure, because of inadequate park maintenance etc. This is a fact of life with all
public facilities and stems from a mentality of injured parties that "someone will pay".
In relation to dog attacks, it is the owner of the offending dog who is mostly liable for any injuries or
damage. However the search for "who is responsible" often absorbs a great deal of energy and local
authorities are often seen as easy targets for legal action. For example it could be construed that a park
management authority contributed to an attack by designating a park for off-leash free-running by dogs.
The laws vary from state to state and are open to interpretation. Local authorities should obtain their own
legal and insurance advice and accordingly make their own risk assessments. However the question of
whether unleashed dogs are more prone to aggression than leashed dogs remains unresolved. Certainly
owners have more control over their dogs when they are leashed but a greater relative incidence of attack
in free-running areas has not been proven and was not necessarily raised as a concern in those
municipalities we spoke to that already allow dogs off leash.
Absolute safety can never be attained. Safety can, however, be improved. Aggressive behaviour in dogs
can be prevented or controlled by responsible breeding, socialisation, obedience training and careful
management ofthe dog (Jennens 1992). Liability insurers can also advise on risk management strategies,
2/5/02 8:22 PM
Public Open Space and Dogs
http://www.petnet.com.au/openspace/4.1.2.html
,.'
.
.
.
20f2
e.g. appropriate signage etc. Naturally Councils have a moral responsibility to minimise risk as well and
they should monitor all reported inyidents. Dogs that are designated as 'dangerous' should be barred from
off-leash areas.
NEXT PAGE
RETURN TO INDEX
PETNET HOMEP AGE
Denise Humphries (petcare@interconnect.com.au)
2/5/02 8:22 PM
DOG~ITE LAW - Dog parks
http://www.dogbitelaw.comlPAGES/dog-.park.html
-;;
.
.
.
lof4
Dog Bite Law
Do" Parks
The uSlUIallaws apply in dog parks where leashes are optional. In
other words, a person bitten in a leash-optional park, or injured
by a dog with "vicious propensities," has the same rights as in
person bitten or injured outside the park. However, there are a
few differences: in a leash-optiona! park, it will be more difficult
for a victim to establish that the dog owner was negUgent by not
having the dog on a leash, and the dog owner will be able to
present a defense based on assumption of the risk. There are
ways to make dog parks and dog runs a bit safer, but there are
no court cases setting minimum standards at this time.
o Overview
o Negligence liability
o Suits against local governments
o Assumption of the risk
o Bites and injuries resulting from a dangerous propensity of
the attacking dog
o Guidelines for dog parks
Overview
Leash-optional dog parks are a great place to take your dog. There is no need for the dog
owner to worry about joggers, kids on bikes, inattentive drivers, elderly people and the
disabled. Like any recreational area, however, dog parks are not free of risks. People and
dogs get injured in dog parks throughout the United States.
One of the most reported problems is that irresponsible dog owners bring unneutered male
dogs into these parks, and then the dog fights begin, with people and dogs being bitten.
Also, there are altercations between the responsible owners and the irresponsible ones.
There currently are no reported legal opinions about dog parks, but some conclusions are
possible. People who suffer bodily injuries or injuries to their dogs have most of the usual
rights in dog parks that they have outside such places. Basically, leash-optional dog parks
merely are places where the city's leash laws do not apply. They are not, however, Wild
West frontier towns where dogs can fight it out and attack people without fear of the Sheriff!
Leash-optional parks are not zones of immunity for irresponsible dog owners and
dangerous dogs.
o
2/5/028:14 PM
DOG ~ITE LAW - Dog parks
.
.
.
20f4
http://www.dogbitelaw.comIPAGES/dog-park.html
Negligence liability
In a leash-optional park, it will be more difficult for a victim to establish that the dog owner
was negligent by not having the dog on a leash. Basically, "negligence" is the doing of
something that was unreasonable, or the unreasonable failure to do something that should
have been done. In a leash-optional dog park, the dog owner still must do what is
reasonable, such as keep his or her dog on a leash if the dog is unruly, easily scared, not
socialized, unneutered, has provoked fights with other dogs, or has any known dangerous
propensity, such as the habit of jumping on people.
If the owner of such a dog fails to keep it on a leash in a leash-optional park, or allows it to
cause injury to person or dog in a manner that could have been prevented, the victim
should still prevail on a claim that the conduct of the dog owner was unreasonable, and
therefore negligent.
To read more about negligence, go to The Dog Bite Law Adviser and, once there, click on
"Negligence ."
o
Suits against local governments
The victim of a personal injury or injury to the victim's dog probably will not prevail on a
claim against the local government entity that established the dog park. Generally, there
are immunities that protect government entities from many claims; if the entity believed that
it was doing something beneficial for the community, it is hard to get around the immunity.
However, failure to enforce its own rules and regulations may result in governmental
liability. Dog parks frequently are governed by special rules that are either posted or part of
the local municipal code. If an irresponsible dog owner has a habit of breaking those rules,
and the local animal control officers do nothing despite being informed, a person who
sustains personal injuries or injuries to his or her dog may prevail against the municipality.
o
Assumption of the risk
Adults and mature children who voluntarily encounter a known risk are usually deemed to
have consented to the injuries they receive as a result of that particular risk.
If you go to a no-leash dog park and you are injured by a dog, under circumstances other
than a bite where the dog would not have injured you if it was leashed, then there is a very
good argument that you assumed the risk. After all, you knew that leashes were optional at
the park, but you went there anyway to take advantage of the same leash-optional law that
resulted in your own injuries.
However, the assumption of risk doctrine will not be used against a responsible dog owner
2/5/028:]4 PM
DOG llITE LAW - Dog parks
http://www.dogbitelaw.comlPAGES/dog-park.html
,
.
.
.
30f4
who goes to a dog park that is frequented by an irresponsible dog owner who fails to follow
the rules of the dog park. The law will not penalize the very people whom the dog park was
intended to benefit, by permitting the dog park to become a Wild West town where anything
goes. For that reason, courts will not permit this doctrine to be used as a shield for
unreasonable or unlawful conduct.
To read more about assumption of the risk, go to the Lawyers section of the Dog Bite Law
home page, click on "Civil Liability for Dog Bites, " and scroll down to the section on
"Provocation and Assumption of the Risk."
o
Bites and injuries resulting from a dangerous propensity
of the attacking dog
In every state, the owner or possessor of a dog having a dangerous propensity (i.e., the
propensity to jump on people or bite people) is strictly liable for injuries that result from the
dog's dangerous propensity. So, if a dog owner knows that his dog likes to jump on people
and knock them down, and if that happens in a leash-optional area, the dog owner will be
liable under state law.
Also, most states have laws imposing strict liability on dog owners whose dogs actually bite
someone, irrespective of whether the dog previously bit anyone. These laws still apply,
even though the bite occurs in a dog recreation area where leashes are optional.
To find out how to investigate whether a dog has a dangerous propensity, go to The Dog
Bite Law Adviser and, once there, click on "Investigation of Dog."
o
Guidelines for dog parks
If you are thinking about establishing a dog park or a dog run, consult with an attorney
familiar with the area where the new facility will be. As a starting point, here are some
guidelines that will promote safety and hopefully limit liability:
· There should be adequate fences that dogs cannot dig under or jump over
· There should be at least one gate that securely latches (consider using two gates, so
that a dog that rushes through the first one cannot get past the second one)
· Visible signs should establish rules
· Users should be advised that they will be using the park at their own risk, including
but not limited to the risk of being bitten, being knocked down, tripping, etc.
· The number of dogs per person must be limited
· The age of users must be limited
· Professional dog walkers should register (at least)
· No dog shall be left unattended by its owner
· No dogs allowed if previously adjudicated to be dangerous
2/5/028:14 PM
DOG !lITE LAW - Dog parks
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/dog.Jlark.html
I
.
.
.
40f4
· No dogs allowed that previously have bitten or injured a person or another animal
· Dogs to remain on leash at all times, coming to and from dog run
· All violations will be investigated and one of the possible penalties is revocation of
privilege
· There will be an address for complaints, which will be reviewed in a timely manner
· There will be a board or other body that will make decisions regarding enforcement
and application of penalties
Remember to see your local lawyer. The foregoing is intended only as a helpful guideline.
o
Click here or on the dog's face to return to the Index Page
[
J
www;dQ9bltela~om wel~c;l~.!..your feedback
www.dogbitelaw.com and each of its sections, including Dog Bite Law, The Dog Bite Law Adviser and the
foregoing text, are (c) 1999-2000-2001 Kenneth Morgan Phillips. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or part
prohibited except where advance permission is granted in writing.
2/5/028:14 PM
~
,.
HSUS - Programs - Companion Animals - Dog Bite Prevention
http://www.bsus.org/nodogbltes/NUtH'W_(..1&Aprevem.nUnI
.
.
.
lof2
. ........................
:::::~:f__
:::::-:-:.:1
:::::~ :::I:IIWIItlI' , ':
- --. -' -,
:::::&}I:JIjI_~
<:;:;:;:~
:::::~:~_.IIUD
.. ?
........-. "
:n~:lmII__
::..... ~
:::::~:~
~ ~&l@@OO~fRID~
:C.o:mpa;nlonAnJmals
Bih'-I'root' Your I>,,~
Common Questions and Answers
about Preventing Dog Bites
Q: Is there any way I can "bite-proof' my dog?
A: There is no way to guarantee that your dog will never bite
someone. But you can significantly reduce the risk. Here's how:
· Spay or neuter your
dog. This important
procedure will reduce
your dog's desire to
roam and fight with
other dogs, making
safe confinement an
easier task. Spayed
or neutered dogs are
three times less likely
to bite.
· Socialize your dog.
Introduce your dog to many different types of people and
situations so that he or she is not nervous or frightened under
normal social circumstances.
· Train your dog. Accompanying your dog to a training class is
an excellent way to socialize him and to learn proper training
techniques. Training your dog is a family matter. Every
member of your household should learn the training
techniques and participate in your dog's education. Never
send away your dog to be trained; only you can teach your
dog how to behave in your home.
· Teach your dog appropriate behavior. Don't play
aggressive games with your dog such as wrestling,
tug-of-war, or "siccing" your dog on another person. Set
appropriate limits for your dog's behavior. Don't wait for an
accident. The first time he exhibits dangerous behavior toward
any person, particularly toward children, seek professional
help from your veterinarian, an animal behaviorist, or a
qualified dog trainer. Your community animal care and control
agency or humane society may also offer helpful services.
Dangerous behavior toward other animals may eventually
lead to dangerous behavior toward people, and is also a
reason to seek professional help.
· Be a responsible dog owner. License your dog as required
2/l 0/02 10:31 AM
;-T-
HSUS - Programs - Companion Animals - Dog Bite Prevention
http://www.hsus.org/nodogbites/NDBPW_Q&Aprevent.html
.
.
.
20f2
by law, and provide regular veterinary care, including rabies
vaccinations. For everyone's safety, don't allow your dog to
roam. Make your dog a member of your family: Dogs who
spend a great deal of time alone in the backyard or tied out
on a chain often become dangerous. Dogs who are
well-socialized and supervised rarely bite.
· Err on the safe side. If you don't know how your dog will
react to a new situation, be cautious. If your dog may panic in
crowds, leave him at home. If your dog overreacts to visitors
or delivery or service personnel, keep him in another room.
Work with professionals to help your dog become
accustomed to these and other situations. Until you are
confident of his behavior, however, avoid stressful settings.
Q: What should I do if my dog bites someone?
A: If your dog bites someone, act responsibly by taking these
steps:
· Confine your dog immediately and check on the victim's
condition. If necessary, seek medical help.
· Provide the victim with important information, such as the date
of your dog's last rabies vaccination.
· Cooperate with the animal control official responsible for
acquiring information about your dog. If your dog must be
quarantined for any length of time, ask whether he may be
confined within your home or at your veterinarian's hospital.
Strictly follow quarantine requirements for your dog.
· Seek professional help to prevent your dog from biting again.
Consult with your veterinarian, who may refer you to an
animal behaviorist or a dog trainer. Your community animal
care and control agency or humane society may also offer
helpful services.
· If your dog's dangerous behavior cannot be controlled, do not
give him to someone else without carefully evaluating that
person's ability to protect him and prevent him from biting.
Because you know your dog is dangerous, you may be held
liable for any damage he does even when he is given to
someone else.
· Don't give your dog to someone who wants a dangerous dog:
"Mean" dogs are often forced to live miserable, isolated lives,
and become even more likely to attack someone in the future.
If you must give up your dog due to dangerous behavior,
consult with your veterinarian and with your local animal care
and control agency or humane society about your options.
Copyright @ 2001 The Humane Society of the United States. All rights reserved.
rffi.J~~'ijOO$~rn ~.,p41i$'(g:$l M~I@&F @ro <>~ \l) [@fi)OO~f~ ~Ii'
2/10/0211:17 AM
ill - )j)g bite liability
/i'
-r
.
.
.
lof2
http://www .iiLorglindividuals/homei/tips/dogbiteliability/
o
~~~~. . ... .... JID
. home '.1
I :]usinesS-.-'--, ... . j Dog bite liability
'H.life ___~_~_._LJ
. health ..;: I
I,..._~~.~h_ W
;;disability :':
Ie disasters --"{'-;=-""- ..
Oother "~':
~. CI;.i't';:tE)J~CcY ~
~'W~l\;n (kG " ' 'J
O;i~~;'c:;~ 1 ;:; .:- ~ I
U::~~f~~!:~:o:~;:'~e 0<' ' I
U.;.. .!e"::" L'L,-,,:',.,-- ':.t.,
4'-'-;-~~_. ',' ,
_..,." . J
" search J
BPRINTERFRIENDlYFORMAT E1EM
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
there are approximately 4,7 million dog bites per year. These
bites cost over $1 billion, with the property/casualty insurance
industry paying roughly $310 million in 1999, about 20% of total
homeowners insurance liability payouts.
II
I.. -. " .. '. : I
Homeowners and renters insurance policies typically cover dog
bite liability. The following tips can help reduce the chances of
your dog biting someone:
1. Have your dog spayed or neutered. These procedures
will greatly reduce the likelihood that the dog will bite.
Dog liability - Video
.p'av with RealPlayer
.p'av with Windows Med\;
2. Socialize your dog so that it knows how to act with other
people and animals.
3. Play non-aggressive games with your dog such as "go
fetch." Playing aggressive games like "tug-of-war" can
encourage inappropriate behavior.
4. Avoid exposing your dog to situations in which you are
unsure what the dog's response will be.
Insurers may charge more for certain breeds of dogs. The
following purebreds have been responsible for the greatest
number of dog bite-related fatalities over the 20 year period,
1979 to 1998, according to the Center for Disease Control &
Prevention (CDC - htto://www.cdc.aov). The breeds are listed in
declining order of fatalities:
. "Pit Bull"
. Rottweiler
. German Shepherd Dog
. "Husky"
. Malamute
. Doberman Pinscher
. Chow Chow
. Great Dane
. Saint Bernard
@ Insurance Information Institute, Inc. - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED -
To request use of our content, email iohns@iii.ora
<<
How can I avoid scams after a disaster?
>>
Grilling safety
2/10/02 11 :56 AM
ill - J50g bite liability
http://www.iiLorg/individualslhomeiltips/dogbiteliability/
~
.
.
--
20f2
2/10/02 11 :56 AM
A V~A Network- Dog Bite Prevention Campaign Brochure
f-
r'
.
http://www .avrna.orgtpress/dogbite/dogbitebroc.asp
A VMA'(tLj~~JF~~1~I~j'~i,J:lb, RfS~~~C~(
=' _ t ~ ....."_ _ 'Ii ',,>.._. L'" ,__. ",", .,' _ . _".,' !.,~ . .~..."
@ The An:lI:~ric;:an Vetetrincu'y M,edical Associ,ClItion
/Member Center't"NOAH) ',..
. " ' ..~
While that's true for the vast majority of dogs,
even the cuddliest, fuzziest, sweetest pup can bite
if provoked.
Unwisely, some owners actually promote aggression in
their dogs as symbols of power.
From nips to bites to actual attacks, dog bites are a
serious problem. Dog bite victims requiring medical
attention in the United States number 500,000 to 1
million annually. Countless more bites go unreported
and untreated. On average, about a dozen people die
each year from dog bites. Fortunately, there are steps
we can take to address this problem.
Wlhlous beoU'ilg iblD~~m?
Children make up more than 60 percent of all dog bite
victims.
The elderly and home service people like mail carriers and meter readers also are high on the list
of frequent dog bite victims.
Wlhlal~U$ al Olog OlWII1l\el1' to OlO?
Carefully consider your pet selection. Before and after selection, your
. veterinarian is the best source for information about behavior and suitability.
Make sure your pet is socialized as a young puppy, so it feels at ease around
people and other animals. Expose your puppy to a variety of situations a little
at a time and under controlled circumstances; continue that exposure on a
regular basis as your dog gets older. If you're not sure how your dog will react
to a large crowd or a busy street, be cautious. Don't put your dog in a position
where it feels threatened or teased.
.
lof3
Train your dog. The basic commands "sit," "stay," "no" and "come" can be incorporated into fun
activities which build a bond of obedience and trust between pets and people. Don't play
aggressive games like wrestling or tug-of-war with your dog.
..
J;. .'
.,..... I'
Keep your dog healthy. Have your dog vaccinated against rabies and
preventable infectious diseases. Parasite control is important to how your dog
feels and behaves.
Neuter your pet. It's a fact: Neutered dogs are less likely to bite. Be a
responsible pet owner. License your dog with the community as required. Obey
leash laws. Dogs are social animals; spending time with your pet is important.
" Dogs that are frequently left alone have a greater chance of developing
behavior problems.
Be alert. Know your dog. You naturally would be alert to signs of illness, but you must also watch
for signs your dog is uncomfortable or feeling aggressive.
2/1 0/02 II :51 AM
A Vr,.1A Network- Dog Bite Prevention Campaign Brochure
hUp:llwww.avma.org/press/dogbite/dogbitebroc.asp
j'
.
.
.
20f3
~ow CallTll my falmo~y all1d! ~ avoodllbeol11lg) lbottelTll?
Be cautious around strange dogs and treat your own pet with respect. Because
children are the most frequent victims of dog bites, parents and care givers
should:
· NEVER leave a baby or small child alone with a dog.
· Be on the lookout for potentially dangerous situations.
· Start teaching young children - including toddlers - to be careful around
pets. Children must be taught NOT to approach strange dogs. Children
should be taught to ask permission from a dog's owner before petting the
dog.
O~ll'Bell' ~iIPS ~1l'Ba1~ may pll"evelTll~ ell' $~OIP a 0109 BlttaclJ{:
Don't run past a dog. Dogs naturally love to chase and catch things. Don't give them a reason to
become excited or aggressive.
Never disturb a dog that's caring for puppies, sleeping or eating.
If a dog approaches to sniff you - stay still. In most cases, the dog will go away when it
determines you're not a threat.
If you're threatened by a dog, remain calm. Don't scream. If you say anything, speak calmly
and firmly. Avoid eye contact. Try to stay still until the dog leaves, or back away slowly until the
dog is out of sight. Don't turn and run.
If you fall or are knocked to the ground, curl into a ball with your hands over your head and
neck. Protect your face.
Wihla~ $hlOll.n~dI ~ die of my dOg) Ibo~es someone?
Even if the bite can be explained (perhaps someone stepped on the dog's tail), it's important to
take responsibility for your dog's actions by taking these steps:
· Restrain the dog immediately. Separate it from the scene of the attack. Confine it.
· Check on the victim's condition. Wash wounds with soap and water. Professional medical
advice should be sought to evaluate the risk of rabies or other infections. Call 911 if
paramedic response is required.
· Provide important information: your name and address, and information about your
dog's most recent rabies vaccination. If your dog does not have a current rabies vaccination,
it may be necessary to quarantine it or even euthanize it for rabies testing. The person bitten
may need to undergo rabies treatment.
· Report the bite to your insurance company.
· Comply with local ordinances regarding the reporting of dog bites.
· Consult your veterinarian for advice about dog behavior that will help prevent similar
problems in the future.
If YOU are the bite victim - treat wounds.
· If your own dog bit you, confine it immediately and call your veterinarian to check your
dog's vaccination records.
· If someone else's dog bit you, contact authorities and tell them everything you can about
the dog: the owner's name, if you know it; color of the dog; size; where you saw it; if you've
seen it before. These details may help animal-control officers locate the dog.
2/10/02 11 :5\ AM
A V~A Network- Dog Bite Prevention Campaign Brochure
.,
.
.
.
3of3
http://www .avrna.org/press/dogbite/dogbitebroc.asp
Dogs are wonderful companions. By acting responsibly, owners not only
reduce the number of dog bites, but also enhance the relationships they have
with their dogs.
To learn more about the joys and responsibilities of pet ownership, contact your
veterinarian or local veterinary association. Read more about the AVMA-State
Farm Insurance DOQ Bite Prevention Campaign in the JAVMA News.
For more information...
The above text is available as a brochure entitled "Don't worry, they won't bite ..." This brochure
was created through a cooperative effort by State Farm and the AVMA. In addition, independent of
the AVMA, State Farm and the Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine have collaborated
on an activity/coloring book, "Fido! Friend or Foe?" about the dos and don'ts of dog safety. For free
copies of the brochure, poster, and activities book call toll-free 1-877-254-FIDO. Or visit the
State Farm Website at http://www.statefarm.com/kidstuf/doabite.htm
B
@)~ln
[ Doo Bite Prevention Media Kit]
NOAH I Member Center I Care for Animals I Professional Resources
NetVet & Electronic Zoo I Network News I AVMA Home
Cooyriaht @ 2002 - American Veterinary Medical Association
2/10/0211:51 AM
.~~
Dog 1>ite prevention campaign: Nip~ing a problem in the bud - JA VMA May I, 1998a
http://www.avrna.orgJonlnews/javrna/may98/s050198a.htm
'I
.
.
.
lof2
.... '. f'" .. ... ..... .
_ ! !~~v~8~::~~I~=~~~O.'ClS) /~"'be.ce",'i~1
Copyright @ 1998 American Veterinary Medical Association
May 1,1998
Dog bite prevention campaign: Nipping a problem
in the bud
An average 12 people die and as many as one million require medical attention each year from dog
bites, and, according to the Insurance Information Institute, insurance companies paid a record $250
million for dog bite liability claims in 1996 alone. Dog attacks costs society $1 billion annually.
"Don't wom,
the)' won't bile."
To address these problems, the AVMA has joined forces with State
Farm Insurance Companies and the institute on a campaign to raise
awareness about dog bites and promote responsible pet ownership.
A brochure titled "Don't worry, they won't bite ..." has been created
through a cooperative effort by State Farm and the AVMA. The title is
meant to make its point through irony. Below the title are five puppies
that appear cute and docile, but as the brochure explains, any dog has
the potential to bite, if provoked. The focus of the campaign is on
prevention, thus, the campaign is honing in on awareness training, how
to avoid dog bites, and what to do if bitten.
Dog bites are the number one health problem of children, outnumbering measles and mumps
combined. Because children make up 60 percent of dog bite victims, a large part of the campaign will
focus on teaching children how to interact with dogs and teaching dog owners responsible ownership
techniques. Factors the brochure impresses on owners are careful dog selection, socialization, proper
training (such as obeying leash laws), and appropriate health care. The brochure further suggests that
an infant or small child should never be left alone with a dog, even if the owner believes his pet is
completely docile. Children should also be taught not to approach unfamiliar dogs. The brochure
offers other tips to prevent or stop a dog attack. The advice here is to "become a tree" (ie, stay
completely still) or lie down and remain motionless. The less threat the dog sees, the less chance of
an attack.
State Farm and the AVMA share a mutual interest in the anti-dog-bite cause. State Farm is one of the
largest insurers of homes in the United States. On its homeowners insurance applications, the
company requests information on pet ownership, breed, and any history of an owned dog biting.
Breed information is obtained for pet identification purposes only. Joe Johnson, a public affairs
specialist for State Farm Insurance Companies, reported that more than 14,000 dog bite claims and
more than $80 million dollars were paid out in liability claims in 1997 alone.
''This issue is a serious problem," Johnson said. "It's a serious problem for the victims and the dog
owners, who are often held civilly and criminally liable, and it's a problem for the insurance
companies."
Johnson hopes the brochure will reduce the number of injuries and deaths resulting from dog bites
and encourage responsible pet ownership. "While it's true that even the sweetest and smallest dogs
2/10/02 11 :48 AM
Dog ~ite prevention campaign: Nipping a problem in the bud - JA VMA May 1, 1998a
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javrna/may98/s050198a.htm
-.-
,
;
.
can bite if provoked, there are also steps that owners can take to reduce the likelihood that their dogs
are going to bite."
There are 17,000 State Farm agents nationwide, and the brochures will be made available to them as
noncommercial materials, to increase public safety and awareness. The brochures will also be
offered through the AVMA to veterinary offices, pet stores, animal shelters, information booths at
special events, and schools.
One veterinarian making good use of these materials is Dr. Ronald D. Anderson, staff veterinarian,
Bureau of Animal Industry, Nevada Department of Agriculture, Reno. He is planning an
unprecedented, statewide public information campaign during National Dog Bite Prevention Week,
June 1-6,1998.
Independent of the AVMA, State Farm and the Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine have
collaborated on an activity/coloring book, "Fido! Friend or Foe?" about the dos and don'ts of dog
safety.
For more specific information about this campaign or brochure, visit the State Farm Web site, or visit
the AVMA Network's dogbite brochure page "Don't Worry. Thev Won't Bite."
Dean J. Monti
Doa Bite Prevention CampaiQn Media Kit
Return to top
NOAH I Member Center I Care for Animals I Professional Resources
NetVet & Electronic Zoo I Network News I A VMA Home
.
CODvrlaht @ 1998
American Veterinary Medical Association
.
20f2
2/1 0/02 11 :48 AM
~
= A community approach to dog bite prevention
American Veterinary Medical Association
Task Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions
.
MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE
Bonnie V. Beaver. DVM. MS. DACVB (Chair), Department of
Small Animal Medicine and Surgery. Texas A&M University.
College Station. TX 17843-4474. representing the AVMA
Executive Board.
M. Douglas Baker. MD. FAAP. Pediatric Emergency Department,
Room WP143. Yale-New Haven Children's Hospital. 20 York
St. New Haven, CT 06504. representing the American
Academy of Pediatrics.
Robert C. Gloster. MD. FACEP. Swedish Hospital Medical
Center. PO Box 14999. Seattle. WA 98114. representing the
American College of Emergency Physicians.
William A. Grant, DVM, Community Veterinary Hospital.
13200 Euclid St. Garden Grove, CA 92843, representing the
Professional Liability Insurance Trust.
James M. Harris. DVM. Montclair Veterinary Clinic and
Hospital, 1961 Mountain Blvd. Oakland. CA 94611. repre-
senting the A VMA Committee on the Human-Animal Bond.
Benjamin L. Hart. DVM, PhD. DACVB. Department of Anatomy,
Physiology. and Cell Biology. School of Veterinary Medicine,
University of California. Davis. CA 95616. representing the
American College of Veterinary Behaviorists.
Danny H. Hattaway, BS. Underwriting Consultant, State Farm
Insurance. 1 State Farm Plaza, D-l, Bloomington. Ii 61701,
representing the insurance industry.
Thomas Honston, MD, Director. Science and Public Health
Advocacy Programs, American Medical Association. 515 N
State St, Chicago. IL 60610, representing the American
Medical Association.
James R. Kosdunann. DVM. MS. Crossroads Animal Hospital,
4910 Crossroads Dr, EI Paso. TX 79922, representing the
A VMA Animal Welfare Committee.
Randall Lockwood. PhD. Vice PresidentlResearch and
Educational Outreach. Humane Society of the United States,
2100 L St NW. Washington. DC 20037. representing humane
organizations.
Don Riec:k. BS. Chief Animal Control Officer. Health
Department. City of Sioux Falls, 132 North Dakota Ave.
Sioux Falls. SD 57104. representing the National Animal
Control Association.
Jef&ey J. Sub. MD. MPH, Medical Epidemiologist, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention. 4170 Buford Hwy, NE
(Mailstop K-45), Atlanta, GA 30341, representing the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
WiDiam S. Strauss. JD. 235A Windsor PI. Brooklyn. NY 11215,
representing the legal profession.
Jan Strother. DVM, 809 Hwy 36 E. Hartselle. AL 35640. repre-
senting the A VMA Council on Public Relations.
STAFF SUPPORT
Gail C. Golab. PhD. DVM. Division of Education and Research.
American Veterinary Medical Assodation. 1931 N Meacham
Rd, Ste 100. Schaumburg. IL 60173. staff consultant.
Jnlie Horvath. BS, Division of Education and Research,
American Veterinary Medical Association, 1931 N Meacham
Rd, Ste 100. Schaumburg, IL 60173, staff assistant.
.
Table of Contents
Introduction and problem statement. . . . . . 1733
Scope of the problem
Which dogs bite?
Dog bite costs to a community
This program
Multidisciplinary and multiprofessionaI
groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1734
Identify dog bite issues in the community
Identify potential partners. allies. support. and
funding sources
Develop an advisory council
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1735
Program coordinator
Animal control agencies
Preventive measures
After a bite occurs
Bite data reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1738
What should be reported?
Who should report?
Who should receive reports?
Data management. analysis, interpretation.
and dissemination
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1739
Public officials and community leaders
Professionals
Public
Media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1743
Know the media
A spokesperson
Have information readily available
Ways to effectively convey information
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1745
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1746
1. Groups potentially involved in dog bite
prevention
2. Model dog and cat control ordinance
3. Recommended data elements for reports of
dog bites
4. Model legislation for the identification and
regulation of "dangerous" dogs
5. Suggested reading for professionals
1732 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force
JAVMA, Vol 21S, No. 11, June 1, 2001
~
~
Introduction and Problem Statement
Dog bites are a serious public health problem that
inflicts considerable physical and emotional damage
on victims and incurs immeasurable hidden costs to
communities. Bites have been tolerated as a job-related
hazard for utility and postal workers, but for many
communities the problem may be more encompassing.
Following a severe attack, there is usually an outcry to
do something, and the something that is done often
reflects a knee-jerk response. Only later do officials
realize that the response was not effective and, in fact,
may have been divisive for the community. To assist
communities in avoiding such ineffective responses,
the AVMA convened a Task Force on Canine
Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions. Although
the number of injuries will never be reduced to zero,
Task Force members believe a well-planned proactive
community approach can make a substantial impact.
The information contained in this report is intended to
help leaders fmd effective ways to address their com-
munity's dog bite concerns."
Scope of the problem
Dogs have shared their lives with humans for more
than 12,000 years, I and that coexistence has con-
tributed substantially to humans' quality of life. In the
United States, there are slightly more than 53 million
dogs sharing the human-canine bond,2.3 more dogs per
capita than in any other country in the world. I
Unfortunately. a few dogs do not live up to their image
as mankinds best friend, and an estimated 4.5 million
people are bitten each year,4.5 although the actual num-
ber injured is unknown.6 Approximately 334,000 peo-
ple are admitted to US emergency departments annual-
ly with dog bite-associated injuries, and another
466,000 are seen in other medical settings.6 An
unknown number of other people who have been bit-
ten do not sustain injuries deemed serious enough to
require medical attention. Still another group of indi-
viduals is not represented by these data, those that
incur injuries secondary to a bite or attempted bite. For
example, a jogger may trip and break an arm while
fleeing from a threatening dog.
Of concern too are the demographics of typical
dog bite victims. Almost half are children younger than
12 years old.&-8 People more than 70 years old comprise
10% of those bitten and 20% of those killed.9.IO
Direct costs of dog bite injuries are high. The
insurance industry estimates it pays more than $1 bil-
lionly in homeowners' liability claims resulting from
dog bites. II Hospital expenses for dog bite-related
emergency visits are estimated at $102.4 million.6
There are also medical insurance claims, workmen's
compensation claims, lost wages, and sick leave-asso-
ciated business costs that have not been calculated.
.
.
Which dogs bite?
An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of
dogs are most "dangerous"? This inquiry can be
prompted by a serious attack by a specific dog, or it
may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a spe-
cific breed as "dangerous."ll.!3 Although this is a com-
mon concern, singling out 1 or 2 breeds for control can
result in a false sense of accomplishment.14 Doing so
ignores the true scope of the problem and will not
result in a responsible approach to protecting a com-
munity's citizens.
Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they
do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.7
Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from pop-
ular large breeds are a problem. This should be expect-
ed, because big dogs can physically do more damage if
they do bite, and any popular breed has more individ-
uals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite
and are capable of causing severe injury. There are sev-
eral reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite
rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds.
First, the breed of the biting dog may not be accurate-
ly recorded, and mixed-breed dogs are commonly
described as if they were purebreds. Second, the actual
number of bites that occur in a community is not
known, especially if they did not result in serious
injury. Third. the number of dogs of a particular breed
or combination of breeds in a community is not
known, because it is rare for all dogs in a community
to be licensed, and existing licensing data is then
incomplete.7 Breed data likely vary between communi-
ties, states, or regions, and can even vary between
neighborhoods within a community.
Wolf hybrids are just that: hybrids between wild
and domestic canids. Their behavior is unpredictable
because of this hybridization. and they are usually
treated as wild animals by local or state statutes. Wolf
hybrids are not addressed by this program.
Sex differences do emerge from data on various
types of aggression. Intact (unneutered) male dogs rep-
resented 80% of dogs presented to veterinary behavior-
ists for dominance aggression, the most commonly
diagnosed type of aggression. I Intact males are also
involved in 70 to 76% of reported dog bite incidents.7.15
The sex distribution of dogs inflicting unreported bites
is not known. Unspayed females that are not part of a
carefully planned breeding program may attract free-
roaming males, which increases bite risk to people
through increased exposure to unfamiliar dogs. Dams
are protective of their puppies and may bite those who
try to handle the young. Unspayed females may also
contribute to the population of unwanted dogs that are
often acquired by people who do not understand the
long-term commitment they have undertaken, that are
surrendered to animal shelters where many are
destroyed, or that are turned loose under the miscon-
ception that they can successfully fend for themselves.'6
Dog bite costs to a community
Costs associated with dog bite injuries cannot be
readily measured, because so many intangible quality
of life issues are involved. This makes it more difficult
for community councils to justifY the time, effort, and
expense necessary to institute a bite reduction program
when compared to a new rITe truck, street paving, or
city park. Intangible costs include time spent by vol-
unteer and paid community officials on animal-related
issues, deterioration of relationships between neigh-
bors, building appropriate medical support, citizens'
concerns about neighborhood safety for children,
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001
Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1733
.4A
,.,
homeowners' insurance costs within the community.
and animal shelter support for unwanted pets. These
are quality of life issues that ultimately determine the
desirability of a community to its citizens and that can
motivate proactive community officials to institute a
prevention program.
This program
Reducing the incidence of dog bites requires active
community involvement; passive attention or a token
commitment is not sufficient. By actively focusing on
dog bite prevention, the State of Nevada was able to
reduce the incidence of bites by approximately 15%.b
Members of the Task Force represented a broad range
of disciplines and designed the program presented
here. It was recognized that the community approach
must be multidisciplinary and that different communi-
ties will have different needs based on their level of
commitment. preexisting programs, and available
resources. Although the best results will be obtained by
adopting the entire prevention program, the program is
designed so that it may be adopted as a whole or in
part. Either way. the goal remains to reduce the inci-
dence of dog bites within communities and improve
quality of life for their citizens.
.
Multidisciplinary and
Multiprofessional Groups
It is unlikely that a dog bite prevention program
will begin in a complete vacuum. Typically. some for-
mal program is already in place under the auspices of
animal control, the health department. or local law
enforcement. Efforts may also be under way by other
groups such as educators or dog breeders. It makes
sense to identity related activities to determine what
needs are not being met, find likely sources of support
or resistance, and avoid duplication of effort and
potential turf battles (Appendix I). C
Identify dog bite issues in the community
Each community has a unique set of dog bite-relat-
ed problems and its own approaches to confronting
them. A central task is to identity these particular
issues. The project begins by assessing the political
landscape regarding dog bites and dog bite prevention.
Before launching a program, it is useful to pinpoint the
degree of current and potential support among corpo-
rate and community leaders as well as legislators and
senior staff in the dog bite prevention program's spon-
soring agency.
Recognize bot buttons-Crafting a program is eas-
ier if the objectives mesh with a highly visible commu-
nity issue. For example, there may be public outcry
about dog waste or a publicized dog attack. Such a sit-
uation may provide impetus for a campaign to support
licensing and leash laws or ordinances pertaining to
reporting dog bites. When community groups and the
media have already invested in fmding a solution to the
dog bite problem, program organizers can dovetail their
efforts and work collaboratively with these groups.
Community interest-Knowing the degree of sup-
port that exists for a prevention program is important.
.
The prior existence of a program suggests support, but
this may not always be the case. The active support of
a commissioner or health department head (Iocal or
state) is critical, because without hislher backing, a
fledgling dog bite prevention program is vulnerable to
shifting funding initiatives and political pressure.
Public officials are influenced by vocal well-organized
constituencies, so it is important to know what dog
bite-related agendas are getting politicians' attention. It
also helps to know whether any legislators have a
strong interest in the dog bite issue.
Dogs in the news-News accounts can provide
clues as to how dog-related issues have played out over
time. Compare these accounts with available statistical
data and scientific assessments for reliability.
Identify potential partners, aiDes, support, and fund-
ing sources
Determine which organizations in the community
are likely to support program efforts or resist them.
Some individuals and organizations will emerge as nat-
ural allies; some old hands will be glad to work with a
new partner in the dog bite prevention field, and some
will actively welcome a new focal point for dog bite
prevention activity. Learning about various entities and
their interest and involvement in dog bite control can
help answer questions in the following areas.
Community resources-Organizations, agencies,
businesses, and individuals offering training, assis-
tance, consulting. library or computer search capabili-
ties, in-kind contributions, volunteer help. or supple-
mental funding must be identified.
Currently available data-Before launching a
major effort to collect dog bite data, it is wise to deter-
mine whether an assessment has already been done.
Ask about reports related to injuries and costs from
dog bites, sUlVeys that include dog bite or dog owner-
ship information, opinion sUlVeys or other studies
describing community perceptions about the need for
dog bite prevention, and similar information. If possi-
ble, fmd out what happened to existing assessments
and related recommendations. Knowing the history of
previous evaluation and prevention efforts will help in
development of a new program. If an assessment has
been done, determine whether methods and conclu-
sions are sound.
Legislation-It is important to know what inter-
ventions (eg, leash laws, "dangerous" dog ordinances)
have been previously introduced and their history of
success. Individuals involved in these efforts may be
valuable allies in new programs. In addition, current
ordinances should be evaluated to determine whether
enforcement or revision could increase their effective-
ness.
Baniers-Ownership of particular dog bite issues
and potential turf battles should be confronted realisti-
cally. In addition, it must be acknowledged that a dog
bite prevention program may attract opposition from
groups on philosophical grounds (eg, groups that
strongly support personal freedom argue that the gov-
1734 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001
.
ernment should not mandate licensing of dogs). Clubs
for specific breeds may not be supportive if they fear
their breed will be singled out in a negative way.
Barriers can be overcome by a fresh approach to old
problems or by agreeing to carve out areas of responsi-
bility among interested groups. 'fYpically. there are
many more problems than there are organizations to
tackle them, so it makes sense to avoid attacking simi-
lar issues.
.
Develop an advisory council
Obtaining community input can be as sophisticat-
ed as conducting public opinion surveys or holding
focus groups to learn about what the community sees
as pressing dog bite issues. More likely, there will be
limited funds at the outset of the program, so more
informal but also potentially valuable approaches may
be required. These include meetings with potential
partners and interested groups to learn about their
constituencies' concerns. This type of informal inter-
view can be a great help in uncovering key dog-related
issues as perceived by the community. Talking with
people in neighborhoods most affected by dog bite
problems is important. For example, if there is a prob-
lem with dog bites in low-income neighborhoods,
obtaining the views of people living there can help
identify the nature of the problem and potential solu-
tions.
An advisory councilor task force that represents a
wide spectrum of community concerns and perspec-
tives creates a source of support for program initiatives.
Advisory groups provide guidance for a dog bite pre-
vention program and may focus on specific high-prior-
ity dog bite issues. Although organizing and maintain-
ing an advisory council is labor-intensive, it can sub-
stantially benefit the program. Members may be able to
provide access to useful information that is not other-
wise easy for the coordinator to obtain. Members can
also identify ways in which the program can work with
appropriate voluntary organizations and associations.
People with experience in dog bite control can offer
perspective about the program and help identify poten-
tial pitfalls as well as successful strategies. Participation
by members representing community organizations
builds a sense of ownership in the dog bite prevention
program.
Logistics in starting an advisory council include
identifying organizations and individuals that should
participate (Appendix 1), determining the size of the
council, establishing a structure and operating proce-
dures for the council and its regular meetings, assign-
ing staff support, determining the relationship between
the staff and the council, and reaching an agreement
about key tasks. When community members and gov-
ernment officials work together to support the creation
and development of a local task force, it enhances the
group's visibility and impact.
To foster an involved and active advisory council,
professionals agree that several criteria must be met.
The number of participants should be kept manage-
able; 10 to 12 is a size that works well. If it is necessary
to have more members for political reasons, breaking
the group into smaller committees or working groups
.
will improve the dynamics. For example, groups could
coalesce around data issues, legislation and policy. and
so on. Involving participants from the start in mean-
ingful tasks will underscore that this is a productive
group. In addition, people are more likely to support a
program they participated in creating, because they
have a sense of ownership.
Because each community's needs and priorities dif-
fer, the advisory council's major tasks will vary. The
advisory council or one of its working groups may con-
sider the following activities:
· coordinating efforts among participating organiza-
tions
· developing an action plan
· establishing dog bite prevention priorities
· generating public and legislative support for dog
bite control
· identifying dog bite reporting sources
· interpreting data
· identifying and obtaining resources for program
activities (educational, financial, staffmg)
· providing technical expertise for the program
· recommending goals and objectives for prevention
It is recommended that the program be overseen
by a paid coordinator. The program coordinator and
other staff involved can contribute to the advisory
council's success by good meeting planning and prepa-
ration, regular communication with members, working
with the advisory council chairperson to set the agen-
da, and helping to solve problems that threaten to
derail the process. As with any volunteer effort, a dog
bite prevention advisory council is likely to thrive if
the coordinator nurtures its members with regular
expressions of appreciation.
Infrastructure
A coordinated effort is essential for success in any
venture, and each individual or organization involved
must have a clear sense of their/its responsibilities.
Reducing the incidence of dog bites requires the coop-
eration of many groups, including animal control agen-
cies, the human and veterinary medical communities,
educators, departments of health, and the local licens-
ing authority. Open and consistent communication is
an integral part of an effective program, and one entity
should be designated as the coordinating agency. A log-
ical coordinating agency would be the health depart-
ment or animal control. In addition, it is imperative
that an appropriate agency be granted authority to
conduct investigations and make recommendations.
Program coordinator
As previously mentioned, dog bite prevention
efforts should be assisted by a paid staff person. Because
the diversity of input is so great, it is recommended that
the office of the advisory council's program coordinator
be located within the municipality's coordinating
agency. Individuals, agencies, or organizations that
come into contact with or are aware of a Mdangerous"
dog or risky situation should provide this information
to the coordinator. The coordinator should then relay
all information to the proper recipients.
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001
Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1735
.
Animal control agencies
Animal control officers are the frontline in con-
trolling animal bites. A well-resourced animal control
agency is vital for public health and safety within any
community. In some communities, animal control is a
stand-alone agency. In others it is administered
through the local city or county health director or is a
subsidiary of the local police department or sheriff's
office. Wherever located, the functions of animal con-
trol within communities are multiple, including:
· training of animal control officers and ancillary
personnel
· licensing of dogs and cats
· enforcement of leash laws, ordinances, regula-
tions, and statutes
· control of unrestrained and free-roaming animal
populations
· investigation of animal bite-related incidents
· administration of rabies quarantine programs after
an animal bites
· bite data management, analysis, and dissemination
regulation of "dangerous" animals
· educational outreach within the community
regarding responsible ownership, spay/neuter pro-
grams, control of "dangerous" animals, rabies vac-
cinations
· coordination of efforts
.
Larger communities often possess more resources
to properly fund animal control agencies and provide
adequate statr7 and training; however, smaller animal
control programs can also be effective, even when they
operate on a limited budget. Dedicated personnel can
accomplish much if they have community support,
including support from law enforcement and the judi-
ciary.
.
Preventive measures
Preventive measures are designed to minimize risk
and should be addressed by all communities.
Control of unrestrained and &ee-roaming ani-
mals-Reasonable and enforceable laws or ordinances
are required for good control of unrestrained or free-
roaming animals (Appendix 2).'8 Laws written to
ensure that owned animals are confined to their prop-
erty or kept on a leash make freeing a community of
unrestrained and free-roaming animals easier. Although
most dog bites occur on the property where the dog
lives, unrestrained or free-roaming dogs do pose a sub-
stantial threat to the public. Enforcement of restraint
laws is, therefore, essential if the incidence of dog bites
is to be reduced. It is important to protect animal own-
ers by providing an adequate amount of time for them
to claim animals that have been impounded. Because of
economic constraints, the current standard in the
industry is 3 working days; however, 5 days may be
more reasonable to ensure successful owner-animal
reunions. Control of unrestrained and free-roaming ani-
mal populations requires an adequately staffed, trained,
and funded animal control agency.
Licensing of dogs-The primary benefit of licens-
ing animals is identification, should that animal
become lost. Licensing also ensures rabies vaccinations
are current, allows quick identification in case of a bite
incident, and provides revenue to help offset the costs
of administering the animal control program. An effec-
tive program can be a source of reliable demographic
data as well.
Vaccinations-Rabies vaccinations are normally a
prerequisite for licensing dogs and cats, because they
are an important control measure for a major public
health concern. In addition to protecting pets, rabies
vaccinations provide a barrier between infected wild
animals and humans. Vaccination has reduced con-
firmed cases of rabies in dogs from 6,949 in 1947 to
126 in 1997.19
Breed or type bans-Concerns about "dangerous"
dogs have caused many local governments to consider
supplementing existing animal control laws with ordi-
nances directed toward control of specific breeds or
types of dogs. Members of the Task Force believe such
ordinances are inappropriate and ineffective.
Statistics on fatalities and injuries caused by dogs
cannot be responsibly used to document the "danger-
ousness" of a particular breed, relative to other breeds,
for several reasons. First, a dogs tendency to bite
depends on at least 5 interacting factors: heredity. early
experience, later socialization and training, health
(medical and behavioral), and victim behavior.7
Second, there is no reliable way to identifY the number
of dogs of a particular breed in the canine population
at any given time (eg, 10 attacks by Doberman
Pinschers relative to a total population of 10 dogs
implies a different risk than 10 attacks by Labrador
Retrievers relative to a population of 1,000 dogs).
Third, statistics may be skewed, because often they do
not consider multiple incidents caused by a single ani-
mal. Fourth, breed is often identified by individuals
who are not familiar with breed characteristics and
who commonly identifY dogs of mixed ancestry as if
they were purebreds. Fifth, the popularity of breeds
changes over time, making comparison of breed-spe-
cific bite rates unreliable.
Breed-specific ordinances imply that there is an
objective method of determining the breed of a partic-
ular dog, when in fact, there is not at this time. Owners
of mixed-breed dogs or dogs that have not been regis-
tered with a national kennel club have no way of
knowing whether their dog is one of the types identi-
fied and whether they are required to comply with a
breed-specific ordinance. In addition, law enforcement
personnel typically have no scientific means for deter-
mining a dog's breed that can withstand the rigors of
legal challenge, nor do they have a foolproof method
for deciding whether owners are in compliance or in
violation of laws. Such laws assume that all dogs of a
certain breed are likely to bite, instead of acknowledg-
ing that most dogs are not a problem. These laws often
fail to take normal dog behavior into account and may
not assign appropriate responsibilities to owners.
Some municipalities have attempted to address
notice and enforcement problems created by unregis-
tered and mixed-breed dogs by including in the ordi-
nance a description of the breed at which the ordi-
1736 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001
.
nance is directed. Unfortunately. such descriptions are
usually vague, rely on subjective visual observation,
and result in many more dogs than those of the intend-
ed breed being subject to the restrictions of the ordi-
nance.
Animal control legislation has traditionally been
considered a constitutionally legitimate exercise of
local government power to protect public safety and
welfare. Breed-specific ordinances, however, raise con-
stitutional questions concerning dog owners' four-
teenth amendment rights of due process and equal pro-
tection.20 When a specific breed of dog is selected for
control, 2 constitutional questions are raised: first,
because all types of dogs may inflict injury to people
and property. ordinances addressing only 1 breed of
dog appear to be underinclusive and, therefore, violate
owners' equal protection rights; and second, because
identification of a dog's breed with the certainty neces-
sary to impose sanctions on the dogs owner is impos-
sible, such ordinances have been considered unconsti-
tutionally vague and, therefore, to violate due process.
.
After a bite occurs
It is important to have a well-defined postbite pro-
gram in place to minimize physical and emotional pain
for dog bite victims. This allows animal control per-
sonnel to work efficiently. protects animals that are vic-
tims of false allegations, and provides the judiciary
with reasonable alternatives that address a variety of
situations. State laws may dictate parts of this process.
Investigation or animal bite-related incldents-
Any animal bite or incident must be thoroughly inves-
tigated and substantiated by an agent of the empow-
ered investigating authority such as an animal control
officer, police officer, or peace officer. Ideally, the inves-
tigating authority should be the same authority that
enforces related ordinances or laws to give continuity
and credibility to all investigations. Investigating offi-
cers must be given authority to perform their duties by
statute or ordinance. Clear, concise, standardized
information concerning the incident must be obtained
to ensure its successful resolution and facilitate long-
term data collection (Appendix 3).
Postbite rabies quarantine programs-A healthy
dog that is currently vaccinated against rabies and that
bites a human should be examined by a licensed vet-
erinarian to determine its health status. If no signs of
illness compatible with rabies are detected, the dog
should be quarantined. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention has set the quarantine period
for dogs, cats. and ferrets at 10 days, including the day
of the bite. Vaccinated dogs can be allocated to 2 cate-
gories: those that have bitten a member of the immedi-
ate family and those that have bitten an individual out-
side the immediate family. Home quarantine can be
considered for vaccinated dogs that have bitten a mem-
ber of the immediate family. assuming the owner can
confine the dog in a manner that prevents further
exposure. Vaccinated dogs that have bitten a human
outside of the immediate family generally should be
quarantined at the local shelter or veterinarian's office.
At the end of the quarantine period, the dog should
.
undergo a physical examination. In addition, interim
evaluations are highly recommended.
A dog that is not currently vaccinated against rabies
and that bites a human should be considered a rabies
suspect and be appropriately quarantined. Contact with
the dog during the quarantine period should be strictly
limited to individuals who have completed rabies pro-
phylaxis and are up-to-date on serologic testing and
booster vaccinations. Physical examinations should be
conducted at the beginning and end of the quarantine
period to determine the dog's health status.
Quarantined dogs may be treated by a veterinarian, but
rabies vaccines should not be administered to the dog
until the quarantine period is complete. If at any time
during the quarantine period the dog has signs of ill-
ness compatible with rabies. it should be humanely
euthanatized and samples submitted for rabies testing.
Records of all bites must be kept, including infor-
mation specifically identifying the dog and owner.
These should be crosschecked with each incident for
evidence of a chronic problem.
Identification and regulation of "dangerous"
dogs-Certain dogs may be identified within a com-
munity as being "dangerous," usually as the result of a
serious injury or threat. That classification, because it
carries with it serious implications, should be well
defined by law (Appendix 4). Any such definition
should include an exclusion for justifiable actions of
dogs. Procedures should be outlined that take into
account the potential public health threat, are reason-
able to enforce, and convey the seriousness of the situ-
ation to the owner. Although animal control officers or
their statuary counterparts are responsible for collect-
ing information, a judge or justice will hear evidence
from animal control officers and the dogs owner to
determine whether that dog fits established criteria for
"dangerousness." In some municipalities, a hearing
panel comprising a cross section of private citizens
hears alleged "dangerous" dog evidence and has been
given the authority to declare a dog "dangerous" if
deemed appropriate. Any declaration by a hearing
panel, judge, or justice is subject to judicial review.
A judge, justice, or hearing panel may promulgate
orders directing an animal control officer to seize and
hold an alleged "dangerous" dog pending judicial
review. If a dog is determined to be "dangerous" by a
judge, justice, or hearing panel, the owner of that dog
is usually required to register the dog with the appro-
priate health department or animal control facility. The
judicial process may also require the owner to follow
other rigid requirements, including but not limited to
permanent identification of offending dogs, training
and assessment of dogs and owners, and having
offending dogs spayed or neutered.
Because the judicial branch is such an integral part
of any enforcement action, the judiciary must assist
during formulation of "dangerous" dog laws. If the
judiciary is involved, its members will be aware of the
process that must be followed to declare a dog "dan-
gerous." In addition, they will be aware of steps that
have already been completed and the options available
when a particular case reaches the courts.
JAVMA. Vol 21B. No. 11, June 1, 2001
Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1737
.
Bite Data Reporting
Accurate and complete reporting of dog bites is an
essential element of a bite prevention program. These
reports are vital not only for case management and
judicial review but for planning. implementing, and
evaluating the status of the problem. Major goals of
comprehensive dog bite data reporting include:
· accurately defining victim demographics to identi-
fy populations at greatest risk for bites and allow
targeting of educational efforts
· defming dog and owner characteristics associated
with higher risk so that an actuarial approach to
the dog bite problem is possible (this facilitates
effective program planning and proper targeting of
control measures)
· defining high risk geographic areas at city. county.
or neighborhood levels so that limited resources
for animal control and public education can be
appropriately deployed
· establishing baseline data so that the impact of
specific elements of the bite prevention program
can be assessed'
· providing an accurate, detailed, unbiased. objec-
tive source of information for decision makers.
media. and the public interested in the dog bite
problem and its prevention
· providing critical information for proper manage-
ment of dog bite cases
What should be reported?
At a minimum, a dog bite case should be defined
as any medically-attended dog bite or any dog bite
resulting in a report to an animal control or law
enforcement agency. This would presumably cover
those instances consuming public resources and would
also include cases that may result in litigation.
A number of data elements should be captured on
a report form such that it is comprehensive in scope
without placing unnecessary burdens on reporting
agencies (Appendix 3). Fatal and severe dog attacks on
humans have been associated with prior or concurrent
attacks on pets or livestock. so it is important that
communities also track those incidents. Maintaining
records of incidents of menacing behaviors of owned
dogs running at large in the community may be found
useful in later legal actions.
.
.
Who should report?
The goal is to report any medicalIy treated dog
bite or any bite resulting in a report to, or response
from. an animal control agency. humane society with
animal control responsibilities. or law enforcement
agency. Therefore. the primary sources of data should
be:
· animal control or law enforcement agencies
responding to a dog bite complaint
· health professionals attending to a bite injury
(hospital emergency staff, urgent care facility staff.
private physicians. school or camp medical staff.
medical staff of other entities such as military
bases or reservations. and veterinarians)
Recognizing that many dog bites go unreported. a
comprehensive program to assess dog bite incidence
should consider possible secondary sources of data.
These may include:
· anonymous surveys of high-risk populations (eg,
school-age children) that may clarify the true
extent of risk in a community
· anonymous surveys of the public (eg, phone sur-
veys) that can help document the extent of bite
injuries and provide a basis for estimating the ratio
of unreported to reported bites
· reports from professionals including veterinarians,
animal behaviorists. dog trainers, groomers. and
kennel operators who are informed of a bite incident
(mandating that any or all of these professions report
bites may be unrealistic given the potential legal
consequences of identifying an animal as a biter)
Reporting mandates are often inconsistent
between jurisdictions or are poorly enforced. Current
local and state reporting regulations should be
reviewed. as should directives from health or veteri-
nary officials. If current provisions are adequate, it may
be necessary to implement procedures to reeducate
professionals concerning their reporting obligations
and periodically remind them of these obligations.
When a failure to report is uncovered, it may be an
opportunity to gain the attention of the professional.
because sanctions may be imposed.
Who should receive reports?
Reporting should be coordinated by one agency.
Logical agencies to coordinate reports include animal
control or the public health department. The coordi-
nating agency. perhaps through the dog bite prevention
program coordinator, must assume responsibility for
maintaining all information and disseminating that
information to other appropriate individuals or agen-
cies (eg, veterinarians. physicians. the dog owner, and
those involved in follow-up educational efforts).
To insure consistency and compliance. regulations
or procedures should unambiguously state to whom
reports should be submitted and within what time
frame the reports should be submitted.
Data management. analysis. interpretation. and dis-
semination
Because multiple sources may report the same
case. procedures should be in place to permit combi-
nation of data from multiple sources into a single
report. Avenues should be developed for electronic
submission of reports to assist in rapid response. to
streamline reporting to higher levels of government.
and to facilitate data analysis. Whereas disposition of
individual incidents is the first goal for reporting. there
is much to be learned from looking at the overall pic-
ture. Keeping information in an electronic database
simplifies the latter.
Data should be reviewed at regular intervals (no
less than yearly) to determine whether the incidence
and severity of dog bites is getting better, worse. or
staying the same. Basic analysis consists of studying
the characteristics of incidents. including:
· time-yearly trends, peak months. day of week,
time of day. This can help with scheduling animal
1738 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001
.
control services as well as dispatch and response
planning.
. place-locating every incident on a map with a
pin. Are there hot spots? This can help target high
risk areas for future control.
. person-victims and animal owners: age, sex.
race. size. Can they be targeted for education?
. dog-proportion of offenders by sex and breed,
proportion running at large, proportion neutered,
proportion with prior reported problems. history
of rabies vaccinations. licensing history. Have
these proportions changed over time?
Successful evaluation and resolution of a commu-
nity problem and accurate assimilation, evaluation,
and use of quality data requires interactive assessment,
feedback. and information exchange. City. county. and
state public health practitioners. epidemiologists, and
representatives of public health organizations (eg. the
National Association of State Public Health
Veterinarians. the Council of State and Territorial
Epidemiologists. the Association of State and
Territorial Health Officers. and the National
Association of County and City Health Officials) can
provide communities with considerable expertise in
the acquisition and interpretation of dog bite data.
Their participation should be encouraged.
Education
Education is key to reducing dog bites within a
community. The list of those to be educated and those
who may educate includes everyone who regularly
comes into contact with dog owners and potential vic-
tims (eg, veterinarians, veterinary technicians and
assistants, animal control officers. animal behaviorists.
dog trainers. humane society personnel, physicians.
school nurses, public health officials, teachers, and
parents) .
The purposes of this section are to educate city
officials and community leaders about the role of vari-
ous professionals in an educational program to reduce
dog bites. provide starting references to ensure a core
of knowledge for those professionals (Appendix 5).
and assist in identification of the educational needs of
various constituencies within a community.
.
Public oOkials and community leaders
Public officials and community leaders are the
people to whom residents look for assistance with
social problems. Their influence is important and well
recognized. If a community dog bite prevention pro-
gram is to gain public acceptance and be effective,
community leaders must be well-informed about dog-
related issues within their community and in general.
.
ProCessionals
Professionals from many backgrounds need to be
involved in bite prevention programs. Their expertise
is essential to making realistic decisions about what
should and can be done to prevent or fo]]ow up on dog
bite incidents and in recognizing what is normal or
abnormal behavior for a dog. Several of these profes-
sionals will likely be members of the advisory commit-
tee, but all should be encouraged to be a part of a com-
munity's efforts to decrease the impact of a dog bite
problem.
Many professions mentioned in this document are
science-based. This means their members are used to
making decisions on the basis of peer-reviewed data-
supported information rather than gut feelings. This
approach to decision making results in improved out-
comes. Because the dog bite problem impacts so many
different groups, networking between community
leaders and professionals is important. The following
sections describe ways that various professionals and
community leaders can work together toward a com-
mon goal.
Veterinarians-Veterinarians are scientists trained
for a minimum of 7 to 8 years and then licensed to
diagnose and treat animal problems both medical and
behavioral. Although most people think of veterinari-
ans as performing animal vaccinations and surgical
neutering, the practice of veterinary medicine includes
all subdisciplines typically associated with human
medicine. The study of animal behavior both normal
and abnormal has become more important within the
profession as animals have become more important to
their owners. Dogs are now four-legged members of
the family. rather than farm animals that help bring
cows into the barn at milking time. With this change in
the dog's role have come unrealistic owner expecta-
tions about what constitutes normal behavior for a
dog. Veterinarians can educate dog owners as to what
behavior is normal. can help dog owners teach their
dogs to respond appropriately in various environments
and provide referrals to reputable dog trainers, and can
assist owners with behavioral problems, including
those that have a medical basis or are responsive to
medication.
Until recently. animal behavior was not often
taught in veterinary curricula. Many veterinarians have
had to acquire their knowledge of normal and abnor-
mal canine behavior from continuing education pro-
grams and professional textbooks. For this reason, dif-
ferent veterinarians have different degrees of knowl-
edge about behavior. All veterinarians, however, have
access to board-certified veterinary behaviorists for
help with behavioral problems beyond their expertise.
Although the time. physical. and emotional
demands of veterinary practice can be overwhelming
and leave limited time to devote to a formal communi-
ty prevention program, veterinarians can substantia11y
impact. prevention efforts through their professional
contact with prospective and current dog owners. This
contact should begin before the pet is acquired.
Providing unbiased information on pet selection can
help prevent inappropriate owner-dog pairings.
Prospective dog owners often make spur-of-the-
moment selections that are based on warm-and-fuzzy
feelings and unrealistic expectations. Encouraging
prospective dog owners to seek information from their
veterinarian about the characteristics and needs ofvar-
ious types of pets and encouraging future dog owners
to ask for guarantees from puppy providers can mini-
mize future problems. When owners take their newly
JAVMA. Vol 218. No. 11, June 1, 2001
Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1739
.
acquired dogs to their veterinarian for an initial exam-
ination and immunizations, the veterinarian has a sec-
ond opportunity to provide these owners with good
medical, nutritional, and behavioral advice.z1 Finally,
veterinarians can educate owners during their dogs'
routine examinations (asking appropriate questions
can reveal problems an owner may not have recog-
nized) or when their dogs are evaluated for specific
problems.
Board-certified veterinary behaviorists-The
American CoUege of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB),
an American Veterinary Medical Association-recog-
nized veterinary specialty organization, certifies gradu-
ate veterinarians in the specialty of veterinary behavior.
To become certified, a veterinarian must have extensive
postgraduate training, sufficient experience. and pass a
credential review and examination set by the ACVB.
Diplomates of this organization work with problem
animals by referral from the animals regular veterinar-
ian. consult with practitioners on cases, and give con-
tinuing education seminars on animal behavior.
Although many communities may not have the benefit
of a resident board-certified veterinary behaviorist, vet-
erinarians have access to and may consult with their
specialist colleagues when necessary.
Veterinary tKbnidans- Veterinary technicians
are integral members of the veterinary health care team
who have been educated in the care and handling of
animals, basic principles of normal and abnormal life
processes, and routine laboratory and clinical proce-
dures. They perform many of the same tasks for veteri-
narians that nurses and others perform for physicians.
Veterinary technicians are often frontline people when
it comes to educating pet owners, particularly in gen-
eral veterinary practices; they greet clients and answer
initial inquiries, clarify instructions, provide clients
with appropriate print, audio, and video educational
material. and answer questions. Certainly, they are an
important part of the educational team when it comes
to dog bite prevention.
Like veterinarians, veterinary technicians have
several opportunities to educate clients. Veterinarians
may be consulted prior to owners acquiring a new pet,
and veterinary technicians can help provide informa-
tion on appropriate pet selection. Veterinary techni-
cians regularly counsel owners during new puppy
appointments, and this is a particularly good opportu-
nity to provide owners with information on bite pre-
vention, including the importance of socialization and
training. Routine physical examinations are times
when veterinary technicians can reinforce the impor-
tance of these early lessons and training, and they can
help veterinarians .identify potential aggression prob-
lems through obseIVation and dialog with owners.
Veterinary technicians can also be tapped to educate
nonpet -owning children and adults through school or
other programs.
Veterinary technology programs do not always
offer curricula in animal behavior and, consequently,
many technicians do not have formal training in this
area when they enter practice. Continuing education
that includes basic principles of animal behavior is
.
.
essential for veterinary technicians, just as it is for their
employers. Maintaining a clinic reference library of
appropriate print, audio, and video material for rein-
forcement and enrichment and for client education is
useful.
Behavioral education for veterinary technicians
relative to dog bite prevention should include recogni-
tion of classic canine behavioral displays and an under-
standing of the basic types of canine aggression and
their prevention. The aim is to assist technicians in
conveying dog bite prevention information to owners.
Veterinary technicians must not be placed in the role of
diagnosing or treating canine aggression.
Animal bebaviorists- There are a number of sci-
entists with PhD degrees in academic fields related to
animal behavior who can seIVe as valuable resources
for communities attempting to reduce dog bite
injuries. Because of their science-based backgrounds,
they can be particularly helpful in setting up protocols
to determine the extent of the problem within a com-
munity and whether ongoing programs are having a
substantial impact.
As a note of caution, the terms animal behaviorist
or animal psychologist are often used by individuals
who do not have strong scientific backgrounds but
who want to work with problem dogs. There is no
method to evaluate the competence of these individu-
als, and they may be more harmful than helpful to a
community's efforts.
Dog trainers-This is a diverse group of individu-
als with no uniformly recognized credentialing body or
measures of competence. Although there are many
good dog trainers, there are also trainers that use inap-
propriate methods of behavioral modification that can
negatively affect a dog's behavior. making the dog more
dangerous to the owner and the community. It is
important that communities make a concerted effort to
work with responsible trainers who interact closely
with veterinarians and PhD-degreed animal behavior-
ists. A qualified responsible dog trainer can be a valu-
able asset to a community advisory group.
Obedience training by itself does not prevent the
development of behavior problems,22 and animals that
are sent to a training facility may not learn how to obey
their owners, because the owners do not learn how to
give commands. For problem animals, training is only
part of the solution.
Physicians and nurses-With a dog residing in 1
of every 3 US homes and approximately 53 million
dogs in the United States,Z.3,6 exposure of the physician
or nurse, their family members, or their patients to
dogs during the course of daily life is inevitable. Dogs
have become important members of many families,
and the presence of a pet in the home can affect an
individual's own decisions about care. Most physicians
are familiar with at least 1 example of a person refus-
ing hospitalization, because there was no one else in
the home to care for their pet.
Because 334,000 Americans are seen in emergency
departments for dog bite injuries each year, 466,000
are seen in other medical practice settings, and 6,000
1740 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001
.
are hospitalized,6 it behooves human healthcare
providers to acquaint themselves with community and
personal strategies to prevent dog bites. Furthermore,
just as occurrences of infectious diseases such as
measles are reported to enable investigation of out-
breaks and development of control measures to protect
the public. dog bites must be reported so that cause
and prevention can be addressed. Communities differ
in their requirements for reporting, and practitioners
must understand what is required in their area.
Traditionally. when confronted with patients seek-
ing care for dog bites. physicians and nurses have con-
fmed their roles to providing medical treatment. With
the expanding roles of physicians and nurses, however,
disease prevention has become an important issue. In
addition to competently treating dog bites and their
complications, healthcare providers need to be aware
of critical roles they can play in reducing dog bite
injuries.
Advising patients about safe behaviors appears
effective in preventing injUry.23-26 Teaching children,
parents, and patients who own dogs about proper
behavior around dogs and responsible dog ownership
is advisable given the frequency of human-canine con-
tact in our society.. Physicians can recommend contact-
ing a veterinarian for pet selection information and
advice if an individual or family is considering dog
ownership, and for information about canine behavior
and obedience training if a dog is already part of the
family. Pediatricians provide age-appropriate injury
prevention counseling during wellness visits.26 Dog
bite prevention should be a part of this counseling.
Dog safety tips can also be included in packets of mate-
rials routinely sent home with new mothers.
When a patient is being treated for a bite, an
opportunity exists to prevent future injury by teaching
bite-avoidance strategies. Probing into the circum-
stances of the current bite may reveal which strategies
should be emphasized. Taking advantage of teachable
moments should be considered part of curative care.
Consulting with a veterinarian may help human health
care providers identify subjects they can address dur-
ing postbite sessions.
As witnesses to the health-related outcomes of dog
bites, physicians and nurses are particularly credible
sources of information and can be effective spokesper-
sons. Pediatricians and nurses should be full partners
in community efforts to reduce dog bite injuries.
Animal control personnel-The staff of a well-
resourced animal control program often includes an
education coordinator who can train teachers. school
nurses, and volunteers to become dog bite prevention
educators within the communitys school system (sim-
ilar to volunteers in the McGroff crime prevention pro-
gram presented to primary-school children). For ani-
mal control personnel. job-related continuing educa-
tion is important. Programs are available through the
National Animal Control Association.
Humane society/animal shelter/rescue group per-
sonnel-Dog bite injuries have negative repercussions
for dogs as well as people, and humane society/animal
shelter/rescue group personnel must deal with these
.
.
issues. Dogs causing severe injuries may be brought to
humane facilities for rabies quarantine or euthanasia.
Dogs that have threatened to bite or that have nipped
may be surrendered to shelters or rescue groups, some-
times without full acknowledgment by their owners.t6
Shelter personnel are forced to decide which dogs can
be placed in new homes and which are not suitable for
adoption. Progressive organizations work with veteri-
narians and animal control officers to educate their
staff about safe dog handling and objective evaluation
techniques. Record keeping and follow-up studies
expand their knowledge base about what works in
their community and what does not. Well-trained and
dedicated humane society/animal shelter/rescue group
personnel can be valuable community resources for
public education as well.
PubOc
Public education is critical to the success of any
dog bite prevention program. because half of all bites
are inflicted by the family dog.27 Only about 10% of
bites are inflicted by dogs unknown to the victim.10t5 A
public education effort must target a variety of individ-
uals and age groups, and one individual should be
assigned to integrate its components. If a special advi-
sory council or task force is convened, its paid coordi-
nator would be a logical choice to coordinate the pub-
lic education effort. Alternatively. the public education
coordinator could be a member of a municipal group
such as the local health department, animal control
agency. or board of education, or a member of a stake-
holder group such as a humane society or veterinary
association. Many educational programs targeted at
various audiences exist and are included in the dog bite
prevention resource list found on the American
Veterinary Medical Association Web site
(www.avma.org). As new materials become available,
they will be added to this resource list.
Children-Children are the most common victims
of serious dog bites. Seventy percent of fatal dog
attacks and more than half of bite wounds requiring
medical attention involve children.7,9015 In addition.
almost half of all children are bitten before 18 years of
age.27.28 The most vulnerable youngsters are 5- to 9-
year-old boys.60708 but smaller children can also be seri-
ously injured.29 Dog bite injuries rank third only to
bicycle and baseball/softball injuries as a leading cause
of emergency admission of children to hospitals.6
Children's natural behaviors. including ronning,
yelling, grabbing, hitting. quick and darting move-
ments, and maintaining eye contact, put them at risk
for dog bite injuries. Proximity of a child's face to the
dog also increases the likelihood that facial injuries
will occur.6.7.29-31
Target group- The first step in a child education
effort is determining what population of children to
target and when. The logical primary audience is those
at greatest risk: children in grades kindergarten
through 4. Late winter or early spring appears to be
the best time to institute a campaign, because the
school year is concluding and, as children spend more
time outside. exposure risk increases.32 It is critical
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1,2001
Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1741
.
that school administrators buy into the concept of a
dog bite prevention program; therefore, requests to the
school district must be made by committed convinc-
ing well-organized individuals. Because school curric-
ula are crowded, time blocks for dog bite prevention
education should be requested early within the school
system's calendar year. If such a block of time is not
available, an alternative is to have a veterinarian or
physician present a I-hour lecture or assembly pro-
gram to the entire student body. Once dog bite pre-
vention education has been included within the cur-
riculum (or has been scheduled to be provided
through a special lecture or assembly program), teach-
ers. nurses, and volunteers should consider addressing
the school's parent-teacher organization to inform par-
ents of upcoming dog bite prevention training for
their children.
Secondary efforts-Secondary targets include chil-
dren in other settings, such as early education pro-
grams (eg, Head Start, day care centers. recreational
centers, and camps).
Identifying instructors- Who teaches the material
will depend on expertise within the community. For
classroom instruction, teachers who have had in-ser-
vice training, school nursing staff. health educators, or
trained volunteers are logical choices. Stakeholder
groups (eg, veterinarians, veterinary technicians, ani-
mal control officers, physicians, nurses. humane soci-
ety staff) may provide a ready source of volunteers for
classroom instruction and special programs.
Adults-Adult citizens must understand the need
for and support a strong dog bite prevention program
not only for their own safety but for the safety of oth-
ers in their community. It is this understanding that
gives a prevention program long-term stability. All
adults should learn appropriate behaviors around dogs
so that they can protect themselves, teach their own
children, serve as an example for others, and reinforce
appropriate behaviors in other children at every oppor-
tunity. Adults also serve as local eyes for animal control
so that roaming dogs are controlled.
Educational materials sent home with school chil-
dren, distributed by pediatricians during well-child
visits, inserted in public utility bills, and produced by
an enlightened local media are all reasonable approach-
es. Involving representatives of service organizations
and community groups during a prevention programs
planning and active stages will strengthen commit-
ment.
Active adults (eg, joggers, bicyclists, golfers)
whose outdoor activities provide greater exposure to
dogs are most at risk for injury. To reach these individ-
uals, bite prevention information should be provided
to local interest groups, recreational facilities, and
health clubs.
Target group-Primary adult targets within the
community are those who have children and who are
active in outdoor activities.
.
.
Secondary efforts-Secondary targets include indi-
viduals between the ages of 21 and 65 years.
IdentifYing instructors-Materials can be developed
or selected by animal control personnel. veterinarians,
veterinary technicians, or other people knowledgeable
about dog behavior. Information can be distributed
through a number of channels such as those identified
above.
Tbe elderly-As people age, they become more
susceptible to injury and disease. Thinning skin
increases risk of bruising, and a bite producing a sim-
ple puncture wound in a younger individual can cause
a severe laceration in a senior citizen. Sensory percep-
tion decreases so that an elderly person may not see a
threatening dog or may not be able to read its behav-
ioral signals accurately. In addition. diminished motor
skills mean that the elderly are less able to physically
protect themselves or escape.
Another concern for the elderly is that their
beloved pet may not be trustworthy around their
grandchildren. Dogs not raised around small children
or not frequently exposed to them may not be social-
ized toward them. I This increases the likelihood of
aggressive behavior being directed toward these chil-
dren.
An educational program for senior citizens can be
implemented in various settings. Materials may be pro-
vided through community services for the elderly such
as church groups, visiting nurse programs, meals-on-
wheels, recreational centers, or travel groups.
Secondary targets are shopping malls and the media.
Trained volunteers, especially from dog-associated pro-
fessions, are logical sources of information. Human
healthcare professionals can be an important source of
information for the elderly because of the frequency of
their interactions.
Thrget group-Primary targets are grandparents
and people aged 60 years or older who have dogs in
their homes.
Secondary efforts-Secondary targets include other
individuals who are at least 60 years old.
Identifying instructors-Physicians can interact
with these people during clinic visits. Animal control
personnel, veterinarians, veterinary technicians, and
people knowledgeable about dog behavior can select or
produce resource information.
Animal owners-People who own dogs have a
wide variety of views about their responsibilities. For
some, dog care means providing food and water when
the thought occurs to them. At the other end of this
spectrum is the person who actively makes sure the pet
is appropriately fed, well-trained, licensed, and healthy.
Some individuals view dogs as disposable items that
can be abandoned at any sign of trouble or expense.
Once a community establishes acceptable standards for
responsible ownership, dog owners must be informed
of these expectations and related ordinances, and rules
must be enforced. Owners and future owners must be
educated about their unique set of responsibilities,
which include appropriate pet selection, providing
quality nutrition, housing, and medical care, compli-
ance with confmement and licensing requirements,
1742 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001
.
appropriate behavioral training, and supervlSlon of
interactions between dogs and children. Citizens must
understand that pet ownership is an ongoing responsi-
bility. not a passive activity.
Dog owners can be provided with information
through various avenues. Veterinarians and their staff
are logical educators and distributors. Local dog clubs
and trainers provide services to more conscientious
owners. Businesses that sell pet foods and supplies
should also be encouraged to provide bite prevention
materials to their customers. Information can be dis-
tributed with utility bills, and animal shelters can pro-
vide classes for people who are considering acquiring a
pet. Incentives for attendance at bite prevention class-
es could include reduced fees for licenses and coupons
for vaccinations, food, and obedience classes. The most
difficult group of dog owners to reach is those with
minimal attachment to their pets. Although strong
enforcement of local regulations will change some
owners into former owners, most will continue to own
dogs. Therefore, education should be an integral part
of any enforcement program. A good working relation-
ship with the judiciary is critical so that offenders of
animal-related ordinances are required to take courses
that emphasize responsible ownership.
Target group-Primary targets are adults who
already own dogs.
Secondary efforts-Secondary targets are adults
who are considering getting a new dog.
Identiiying instructors-Information for this target
audience can come from various sources, and its distri-
bution should be approached in a number of ways.
Animal control officers and members of the legal pro-
fession can describe what is expected regarding local
regulations and the serious consequences if these reg-
ulations are violated. Veterinarians and their staff can
educate owners about vaccinations, neutering.
restraint, and other health care issues. Dog club mem-
bers and trainers can assist by providing socialization
and training instruction and can help educate owners
about being good dog-owning neighbors.
Victims-When someone becomes a dog bite vic-
tim, a teachable moment is created. How useful that
moment becomes in preventing future incidents
depends tremendously on the seriousness of the bite
and the fear response of the victim. Scare-producing or
threatening events are good times for dog bite preven-
tion information to be conveyed. However, the time
surrounding a serious injury is generally too emotion-
ally charged to be of value for dog bite prevention edu-
cation.
Who provides information to victims depends, in
part. on who is contacted about the incident. In addi-
tion to medical personnel, animal controls investiga-
tive efforts usually require a home visit. Routine visits
to a physician should include gathering historical
information about the patients interactions with dogs
to identify patients who would benefit from additional
education. Media stories that reinforce correct
approaches to prevention can also touch many when
they are most receptive.
.
.
Target group-Individuals who have recently been
bitten by a dog seriously enough to require medical
attention but not so seriously as to have sustained
severe injuries are the primary target.
Secondary efforts-Secondary targets are individu-
als who have been bitten by a dog in the past.
Identifying instructors-Medical professionals and
animal control personnel are the individuals who
encounter this group.
Businesses-Community businesses need to
address dog bite prevention as well. Certain businesses
(eg, veterinary clinics, grooming and boarding facili-
ties, animal control, pet sitting agencies) revolve
around direct contact with dogs. and employee educa-
tion is critical from a safety and liability standpoint.
Employees of other businesses will occasionally
encounter dogs in the course of their daily job activi-
ties (eg, utility workers, police officers, parcel carriers,
and emergency medical technicians). Training con-
ducted by an animal control officer or other knowl-
edgeable professional may provide employees with the
tools they need to safely handle contacts with at-large
animals. attack/guard dogs, or dogs who simply reside
on the premises of those facilities where they do busi-
ness.
Target group-Primary targets are employees and
business owners who will be working with dogs on a
daily basis.
Secondary efforts-Employees of companies who
are likely to encounter dogs in their daily business
activities can be considered secondary targets.
Identifying instructors-Animal control personnel,
veterinarians, veterinary technicians. and dog trainers
who are experienced at dealing with dogs in a variety
of environments. These individuals will need to cus-
tomize presentations to the type of situations most
likely encountered by the target audiences.
Media
The local media play an important role in a com-
munity's efforts at bite prevention. For this reason. it is
suggested that 1 member of the advisory councilor
task force be a media representative. In addition. the
advisory council can be proactive in helping the media
convey important and appropriate messages.
Sensational events provide an opportunity to convey
important messages. Regular features can reinforce
principles and keep educational efforts flowing.
Know the media
Your key to the public eye and ear is a selective up-
to-date list of local media contacts who have an inter-
est in animal issues. Such a list can be developed by
undertaking a comprehensive media survey. Check the
local library for publications that list names, telephone
numbers. and short descriptions of your communitys
media outlets. Call each office or studio to discover
which desks or departments should receive your
inquiries and press releases. Read local newspapers and
listen to local radio and television news and feature
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001
Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force 1743
.
programs to identify reporters and hosts who address
animal issues. Finding out whether these individuals
gather their own news or use wire services will allow
you to target press releases and materials to those who
are most likely to use them. Contact local freelance
writers to see whether they would be willing to feature
a bite prevention message in an upcoming piece. Be
aware that your media list will be dynamic, and take
time to update the names of specific contacts. Once a
helpful story is published, or a reporter conveys your
message during a broadcast, be sure to acknowledge
that effort by sending a thank-you note or making an
appreciative telephone call.
A spokesperson
The community should identify a spokesperson
who has the expertise to address complicated dog bite-
related issues. and this individual should be provided
with media training so that he/she becomes an effective
communicator with the print and broadcast media. It is
the spokespersons responsibility to convey information
clearly, accurately. and promptly. In various situations,
this individual can identify when there are not enough
animal control officers to prevent dog packs from form-
ing or when a dog has been "sicced" on a person as a
weapon. A knowledgeable and effective communicator
can turn a publicized bite into a learning opportunity
by providing suggestions on how that bite could have
been prevented (eg, the dog was not appropriately con-
trolled or confined, or a child was left unsupervised).
.
Have information readily available
The advisory councilor task force should create a
I-page fact sheet for use by the media and the
spokesperson. This fact sheet should include the num-
ber of dog bite incidents occurring in the community
during the past year, the number of dogs in the com-
munity. the number of licensed dogs in the communi-
ty. what local laws govern dog ownership and control.
and to whom problems should be reported. A list of
community resources should also be available.
.
Ways to effectively convey information
Because animal stories are popular with the media,
there are numerous opportunities to convey bite pre-
vention information. Local broadcast programs and
newspapers find regular segments about animals pop-
ular with viewersllistenerslreaders, and most of those
spots have enough time for short lessons. Another
approach is to proactively bring animal stories to the
media. Examples include a story about a shelter dog
that visits nursing homes after being rescued and
appropriately trained, a description of a guide or
"hero" dog's training, or warm-weather tips for pets.
Effective mechanisms for providing information vary
with the medium but include:
News releases-Releases may be provided to
print, radio, or television outlets. Releases should be
double-space typed on stationery that provides the
source of the announcement (ie, the advisory council
or task force). Include the subject of the news release
and contact information in the upper left corner. The
mailing date of the release should be indicated along
the right margin. The release should be written in
inverted pyramid style, placing the most important
information at the beginning. Releases should be limit-
ed to 1 page if possible.
Interviews-Interviews may be conducted by
print, radio, or television reporters or hosts and, in the
case of television and radio, may be live or taped. The
individual being interviewed must be an excellent com-
municator and intimately familiar with dog bite issues
and prevention. The interviewee may request a prein-
terview to get a grasp of the direction of the interview.
It is advisable to tell the interviewer which issues you
would defmitely like to see addressed. Answers should
be structured according to the program's time limits.
Talk shows-Most of the principles that apply to
interviews also apply to talk shows, but in this situa-
tion there usually will be interaction with guests (who
often hold opposing views), potentially with an audi-
ence, and with the host. Running through mock dis-
cussions prior to participation is helpful. Responses to
questions or comments from those with opposing
views should always be factual. sincere, and polite.
Public affairs programs-Many stations air 2 or 3
programs a week in which the station's news staff or
station management interview a newsmaker, a
spokesperson from an activist group, or a public rela-
tions representative from an industry. Issues in the
news are often addressed by such programming. These
provide a good opportunity to make your community
aware of bite prevention efforts and to elicit support.
Access to these programs may be requested by sending
a letter to the station manager.
Bulletin board and community announcements-
Many local television stations donate air time to
announcements of community events. These are often
broadcast in calendar format. This is an easy way to
publicize educational events and responsible pet own-
ership classes.
Editorials-Editorials are used by print, radio,
and television reporters to present their views on issues
of public interest. Prepared statements describing the
advisory councils approach to dog bite prevention can
be provided to reporters for use in preparing an edito-
rial or may be provided if a reporter presents an oppos-
ing viewpoint.
Public service announcements-Many radio and
television stations donate time for public service
announcements (PSA); however, public service groups
cannot specify when your PSA is to be aired. It is accept-
able to suggest when you believe airing your PSA will be
most effective. Most PSAs run for 30 to 60 seconds,
although 10- and 20-second spots are also used. To mit-
igate the costs associated with production, you may
want to contact local stations to see whether they offer
sponsored placements, in which local advertisers donate
time for specific public service messages. Public service
announcements may consist of script only. sight and
sound (simple or complex), or 16-mm mm or videotape.
1744 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force
JAVMA. Vol 21a. No. 11, June 1. 2001
.
'See www.avma.org for additional and updated information.
bAnderson RD. Nevada Department of Public Health. Reno. Nev:
Personal communication, 1999.
'National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Resource guide-
line for state and local injury control programs; In preparation.
.
References
1. Beaver BY. Canine behavior: a guide for veterinarians.
Philadelphia: WB Saunders Co, 1999.
2. Wise JK. Yang 11. Dog and cat ownership, 1991-1998.] Am
\-et Med Assoc 1994;204:1166-1167.
3. Center for Information Management. US pet ownership and
demographics sourcebook. Schaumburg, III: American Veterinary
Medical Association. 1997.
4. Sacks 11. Kresnow M. Houston B. Dog bites: how big a prob.
lem? In} Prev 1996;2:52-54.
5. Quinlan KP. Sacks 11. Hospltallzations for dog bite Injuries.
]AMA 1999;281:232-233.
6. Weiss HB. Friedman 01. Coben JH. Incidence of dog bite
injuries treated In emergency departments. ]AMA 1998;2711:51-53.
7. Wright JC. Canine ~ion toward people: bite scenarios
and prevention. \-et ClinNorth Am Small Anim Pract 1991;21:299-314.
8. Parrish HM, Clack FB, Brobst D. et a1. Epidemiology of dog
bites. Public Health Rep 1959;74:891-903.
9. Sacks 11, Sattln RW. Bonzo SE. Dog bite-related fatalities
from 1979 through 1988. ]AMA 1989:262: 1489-1492.
10. Sacks JJ. Lockwood R. Homreich J. et al. Fatal dog attacks.
1989-1994. Pediatrics 1996;97 :891-895.
11. Beaver BY. Human-canine interactions: a summary of per-
spectives.] Am \-et Med Assoc 1997;210:1148-1150.
12. Lockwood R. Vicious dogs: communities, humane societies,
and owners struggle with a growing problem. Comm Anim Control
1996;Mar/Apr:12-14.
13. Podberscek Ai. Dog on a tightrope: the position of the dog
In British society as Influenced by press reports on dog attacks (1988
to 1992). Anthrozoiis 1994;7:232-241.
14. Sacks JJ. Sinclair L. Gilchrist J. et aI. Breeds of dogs involved
in fatal attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998.] Am \-et
Med Assoc 20oo;217:836~40.
15. Gershman KA. Sacks 11. Wright JC. Which dogs bite? A
case.control study of risk factors. Pediatrics 1994;93:913-917.
16. Line SW Factors associated with surrender of animals to an
urban humane society. In Proceedings. 135th AVMA Annu Conv.
1998:345-348.
17. Mays j. How many ACOs should you have? NACA News
I 998;]anIFeb:27 .
18. American Humane Association. American Veterinary
Medical Association. The Humane Society of the United States. Pet
Food Institute. Model dog and cat control ordinance. Schaumburg. III:
American Veterinary Medical Association. 1976.
19. Nationat Association of Slate Public Health Veterinarians.
Compendium of animal rabies control. ] Am \-et Med Assoc 1999;
214:198-202.
20. Marmer 1. The new breed of municipal dog control laws:
are they constitutional? University of Cincinnati Law Review
1984;53:1067-1081.
21. Hari B1. Selecting, raising. and caring for dogs to avoid
problem aggression.] Am Vet Med Assoc 1997;210:1129-1l34.
22. Votth VL. Wright JC. Danneman PJ. Is there a relationship
between canine behavior problems and spoiling activities. anthropo-
morphism. and obedience training? Appl Anim Behav Sci 1992:34:
263-272.
23. Quinlan KP. Sacks JJ. Kresnow M. Exposure to and compli-
ance with pediatric injury prevention counseling-United Slates.
1994. Pediatrics 1998;102:E55.
24. Miller 'fR. Galbraith M. Injury prevention counseling by
pediatricians: a benefit-cost comparison. Pediatrics 1995:96:1-4.
25. Bass JL, Christoffel KK. Wldome M, et aI. Childhood Injury
prevention counseling in primary care settings: a critical review of
the literature. Pediatrics 1993;92:544-550.
26. Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention. American
Academy of Pediatrics. Office-based counseling for Injury preven-
tion. Pediatrks 1994;94:566-567.
.
27. lones BA. Beck AM. Unreported dog bites and altitudes
towards dogs. In: Anderson RK. Hari BL. Hari LA. eds. The pet con-
nection: ils in/1uence on our health and quality of life. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota, 1984;355-363.
28. Beck AM. lones BA. Unreported dog bites In children.
Public Health Rep 1985;100:315-321.
29. Thompson. PG. The public health impact of dog attacks in
a major Australian city. Med] Aust [serial online] 1997:167:129-132.
Available at: hltp:llwww.mja.com.au. Accessed April 24. 2000.
30. Wright lC. Severe attacks by dogs: characteristics of the dogs.
the victims. and the atlack settings. Public Health Rep 1985; 1 00:55-61.
31. Karlson TA. The incidence offaclal injuries from dog bites.
]AMA 1984;251:3265-3267.
32. Harris D, Imperato Pl. Oken B. Dog bites-an unrecognized
epidemic. N Y Acad Moo Bull 1974;50:981-1000.
33. American Animal Hospital Association. Owner education is
key to preventing pet behavior problems. Paw Prints 1995;Sprlng.
34. Arkow P. Animal control laws and enforcement] Am \-et
Med Assoc 1991 ;198:1164-1172.
35. Borchelt PL. Lockwood R. Beck AM. et al. Attacks by packs
of dogs Involving predation on human beings. Public Health Rep
1983:98:57-66.
36. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dog-bite relat-
ed fatalities United States, 1995-1996. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
1997;46:463-467.
37. Hannah HW Municipal animal control ordinances-some
legal issm's.] Am \-et Moo Assoc 1998:213:38-39.
38. Hannah HW Legal issues involved in the control of dan-
gerous dogs.] Am \-et Moo Assoc 1994;204:735-736.
39. Hannah HW. Dog-bite statutes. ] Am Vet Med Assoc
1989;195:908-909.
40. Hannah HW Veterinarians. dog bite statutes, and liability. ]
Am \-et Moo Assoc 1981; 179:662-663.
41. Lauer EA. White WC, Lauer BA. Dog bites: a neglected
problem in accident prevention. Am] Dis Child 1982;136:202-204.
42. Lockwood R. Rindy K. Are .pit bulls. different? An analy-
sis of the pit bull terrier controversy. Anthrozoiis 1987; 1 :2~.
43. Moss Sp' WrightlC. The effects of dog ownership on judg-
ments of dog bite iikelihood. Anthrozoiis 1987;1 (2):95-99.
44. Podberscek Ai. Blackshaw lK. Dog bites: why. when and
where? Aust Vet Pract 1990;20:182-186.
45. A VMA animal welfare forum: human-canine interactions. ]
Am \-et Med Assoc 1997;21O:1i21-1154.
46. Segan OJ. When the dog bites: strategies for emergency
management. The Physician and SportsmOOiclne 1994:22:67-69.
47. Sosln OM, Sacks 11. Sattin R\oV. Causes of nonfatal Injuries in
the United Slates, 1986. Accid Anal Prey 1992;24:685-687.
48. American Veterinary Medical Association. Zoonosis updates
from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Schaumburg. 1lI: American Veterinary Medical Association. 1995.
49. A VMA Commillee on the Human-Animal Bond. The veteri-
narians way of selecting a proper pet. Schaumburg. Ill: American
Veterinary Medical Association. 1986.
50. American Veterinary Medical Association. Dangerous ani.
mal legislation (position statement). ZOO 1 A VMA membership directo-
ry and resource manual, 2000:86.
51. Beaver BY. Profiles of dogs presented for aggression. ] Am
Anim Hasp Assoc 1993:29:564-569.
52. Borchelt PI.. Aggressive behavior of dogs kept as compan-
ion animals: classification and influence of sex, reproductive status
and breed. Appl Anim EthoI1983;1O:45-61.
53. Hart BL. Hart LA. Selecting pet dogs on the basis of cluster
analysis of breed behavior profiles and gender. ] Am \-et Med Assoc
1985;186:1181-1185.
54. Hari BL. Miller MF. Behavioral promes of dog breeds. ] Am
\.ilt Moo Assoc 1985;186:1175-1180.
55. Hopkins SG. Schubert TA. Hart B1. Castration of adult male
dogs: effects on roaming. aggression. urine marking. and mounting.
] Am \-et Med Assoc 1976:168:1108-111O.
56. Horwitz D. Pet misbehavior: the human-animal bond at
risk. Adv Small Anim Med Surg 1998; 11: 1-3.
57. Landsberg GM. The distribution of canine behavior cases at
three behavior referral practices. \-et Med 1991:0ct:1OII-1018.
58. Landsberg B. Hunthausen W. Ackerman 1. Handbook of
JAVMA, Vol 21B, No. 11, June 1, 2001
1745
Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force
.
.
.
behaviour problems of the dog and cat. Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann. 1997;129-150.
59. Lund 1D, Vestergaard KS. Development of social behaviour in
four litters of dog; (Canis familiaris). Acta Wlt Scand 1998;39: 183-193.
60. Mathews 1R, Lattal KA. A behavioral analysis of dog bites to
children. Dev Behav Ped 1994;15:44-52.
61. Neilson 1C, Eckstein RA. Hart BL. Effects of castration on
problem behaviors in male dog; with reference to age and duration
of behavior. JAm Wlt Moo Assoc 1997;211:180-182.
62. Netto W1. Planta DjU. Behavloural testing for aggression In
the domestic dog. Appl AnIm Behav Sd 1997;52:243-263.
63. O'Farrell V. Peachey E. Behavioural effects of ovariohys-
terectomy on bitches. J Small Anim Pract 1990;31:595-598.
64. Overall K. When dog; bite: what you don't know can kill
dogs. DVM Newsmagazine 1998;Apr:I3S-20S.
65. Overall K. Clinical behavioral medicine for small animals. St
Louis: Mosby. 1997;88--137.
66. Overall KA. Sex and aggression. Canine Pract 1996;20: 16-18.
67. Overall K. Fearful aggression, anxiety case leads to inten-
sive behavior modification protocol. DVM Newsmagazine 1995;May:
6S-IOS.
GB. Overall KL. Early Intervention by owner can help prevent
Inappropriate play aggression. DVM Newsmagazine 1993;26(9):43.
69. Reisner JR. Erb HN. Houpt KA. Risk factors for behavior-
related euthanasia among domlnant'aggressive dog;: 110 cases
(1989-1992) JAm Vet Moo Assoc 1994;205:855-863.
70. Tan 1S. Human zoonotic infections transmUted by dogs and
cats. Arch Intern Med 1997;157:1933-1943.
71. Underman AE. Bite wounds Inflicted by dogs and cats. Wlt
Clin North Am Small AnIm Pract 1987;17:195-207.
72. Wright 1C. Canine aggression: dog bites to people. In: Volth
VL. Borchelt PL, eds. Readings in companion anImal behavior. Trenton,
N1: Veterinary Learning Systems. 1996:240-246.
73. Zoonotic diseases In the immunocompromised: roles of
physicians and veterinarians. Am Assoc Food Hyg Wlterinarlans News-
O-Gram 1998;NovlDec: 14-15.
74. American Veterinary Medical Association. People and ani-
mals sharing the world. Schaumburg, Ill: American Veterinary
Medical Association, 1993.
75. Fleisher GR. The management of bite wounds. N Eng! J Med
1999;340:138-140.
76. Talan DA, Citron DM, Abrahamian FM, et al.
Bacteriologic analysis of infected dog and cat bites. N Engl J Med
1999;340:85-92.
Appendix 1
Groups potentially involved in dog bite prevention
A model program for preventing dog bites begins with assembling a local
coalition. Wide representation of community views on the coalition helps
ensure suffICient input and community acceptance of the program. Key play-
ers include:
. animal control officials
. attorneys, judges
. business sector (eg, local business leaders, insurance companies, pet
stores)
. dog breeders and trainers
. educational system (eg. schools, parent-teacher organizations)
. health departments and public health associations
. humane societies
. human healthcare providers and associations (eg. nurses. pediatricians.
community health centers, emergency medical service and ambulance
companies, health maintenance organizations, hospitals. managed care
organizations, medical associations, medical examiners' and coroners'
offICes. schools of medicine and public health, lrawna centers)
. kennel clubs. dog clubs, assistance dog organizations
. law enforcement agencies
. local government officials
media
· occupational safety organizations. agencies. and groups (eg. firefl9ht-
ers, meter readers)
. veterinary care providers and associations. allied staff. clinics. schools
of veterinary medicine and veterinary technology
. volunteer nonprofit organizations (eg. boy/girl scouts; various .V.s; 4-H
clubs; chapters of the American Red Cross. Safe Kids, National Safety
Council, and National Fire Protection Association; foundations; United
Way: and civic groups (Kiwanis. RotaryD
. other groups (eg. sports recreation clubs Uoggers. bicyclists), automo.
bile clubs. extension offices)
Continued on next page.
1746 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1. 2001
Appendix 2
Model dog and cat control ordinance
.
Originally prrx1Jced and published jointly by the American Veterinary Medical Associlllion, /he
American Humane Association, /he Humane Society of /he United States, and the Pet Food
In5liUJte in 1976. Modifica/kJns have been made from the IXiginal version!D reflect updated US
Public Laws. current rilles of ~ referem::ed documents, and present favored temrino/ogy
and def1llilions concerning "d8ngerros' animals.
Section 1. Definiti_
As used in this ordinance 1he following tenns mean:
Animal-fa" d1e Jll8IlOSll Of this aDlI1ance, animal shall mean dog or cat
Animal controI8l1hori!y-The person or per50flS desi!Jl8ll!d to enlace this ordinance.
Animal esUltJlisllment-Any pel sIq>, groooling sIq>, animal auction. perfonni1g.....imal exhi~
tion, kennel or animal shelter, e>cepl this tenn shall rot inciJde vetl!rinay rri!d'1CaI fJlcirllies,
licensed research facilities, facilities ~ by government agencies, or licensed animal
deal.n regulated by d1e USDA under the provisioos Of US P\lbliC Laws 89-544, 91-579, 94-219,
99-198, and 10l.Q4.
Animal sheI!er-facitity desi!Jl8led or rl!CO!Plized by the (;sisdictim]. for 1he l1'rpose of
iI'r4lOOnDlI1!J and caring for animals.
Al/arge-A dog or catshall be deemed lObe at large when off the property of the ov.ner and rot
under restrall1l
Humane manner -Care of an animal to inckJde, but rot be lirnill!d to, adequale heat. ventilatim
and sanitwy shelta'. wholesolre food and water, consisIent with the nomal requirements and
feedings habits Of the animars size, species, and keel!.
KenneI-An establishment I<ept 1br 1he IUJlDSE! of keeOll~ seDing. or boarOlI1Q dogS or cats or
engaged in training dogS or cats.
Ucrosing 8U!1ui1y-1he agency or depar1l1lenlOf O\Jl'isdiction] or art'f designated representatiw!
thereof charged with adminiStering the issuance arD'or rlMlC3liOO of pennlls and licenses
under d1e prlIIlisioos 01 this aDllance.
I.ives1Ddc guarr/ing ~ kepi for the prinary l1'rpose Of proleC\iI1g livestock frllll preda-
tay attacks.
Neuternd--Rendered penmnentJy incapable of rep'ociJctin
Nuisance-/'. dog or cat sflaU be coosidered a nuisance II it: damages, soils, defiles. or defecates
00 private property 01l1er than the OIMler'S or 011 public walks ana recreatill1 areas LlI1less such
waste is imIrediately removed and pr~ disposed Of by the 0IMler; caJses unsanitary,
"dangerWS," or offensiW! conditioos; causes a dis1u1lance by excessive ba~ or other
noise making; or chases vehiCles, or rooiests. atlaclls. or interferes with persons or other
domestic animals 00 ,u>liC P"'Jll!rIy.
Owne'-A person having therig/llofpropertyor aJSlOdyof a dog or cat or who keeps or hartlors
a 00g IX cat or knowingly penni1S a dog or cat to remain 00 or abClJt arty jm11ises lJCCl4lied by
that persoo.
~ indivil1laI, corporation. partnership, organizatioo, or institution COlTmlllIy recog-
nized by law as a unit
Pel sflop-An establisflm!nt engaged in the Iu;i1ess Of Wying or selfll1Q. at relaiL dogs or cats
or other animals for proftt-mating purposes.
Restr8int-A dog or cat shall be considered .mer restraint if it is wilhin the real property Iinits
Of lis owner or sea.-ed by a leash or lead or lrIder the cootrol of a responsible persalt
"Danqerous" dog or Cal-A dog or cat 1hat withwt justifICation auacks a person or domestic an;'
mal causing physical inpy or death, or behaves in a manner that a reasonable person VoWId
believe poses an LlI1justifled imrrinent 1hl!at or seriws i;.y or dealll to ooe (I) or roore per-
soos or domestic animals.
Section 2. licensing and rallies r.lCCinalion
a. Except as provided in Sectioo 3, m person shaD own. keep. or harbor arty dog or cat over
fOU' (4) mooths or age within Ijtrisdiction] unless such dll!J or cat is vaccinated and
licensed. The provisioos of lI1is sectioo do no! awly 10 ammals owned by a licensed
research faCIlity or held in a veterinary mediCal facility or goverrrnent operated or licensed
animal sheller.
b. All dogS and cats shaD be vaccinated against rabies by a licensed veterinarial\ in accor-
dance wilh the latest "CorI'p!Odium of Animal Rabies PmImtion and Cort1roI" authored by
the Natiooal Association of SlBIe PubliC Health Veterinarians and l1'blished annually in the
Journal of!he American Veterinaty Medical Association.
c. A ce1ificate of vaccinatioo shall be issued to the owner Of each animal vaccinated 00 a form
recooolllellded by the Carqlendium Each owner shaD aisoreceive a d\Jl'abIe vaccinatioo tag
indicating the ye;r in which it was issued.t
d. AppIicatioo 1br a liCense must be made within lI1ity (30) days after obtaining a dog or cat
over 4 mooths of age. except that this requirement wiD not awly to a nooresifent keeping a
dog or cat with d1e IjlXisdiction] for m longer than sixty (60) days.
Writlen appIicatJoo for a dIXI or cat license shall be made to the (licensing authority] and
shall include the name and ackfess of 1he owner and the name. breed. color, age, and sex
of the dog or cat AjJpIicants also shall pay lI1e,resaibed licensing fee and provide proof of
QlTent rabies vaccination
e. The licensing period shall be for * year(s). L.icense renewal may be awfled for within sixty
(00) dayS JriorlO the expiration date. New residents must awlyfor a Ocense within thity (30)
<<!BJS Of estaJIistling resilence.
f. A license shall be issued aftEr paymeI1I Of a fee 01 $_ for each lI11eutered dog or cat and
$_ for each neutered lk'!J or catS Persoos who fail 10 obtain a rocense as r"",ired with-
in the tine period specffied 11 this sectioo will be suI!jected to a delinq.Jent fee Of $_.
g. license fees shall be waived for dogs serving the blind or deaf or govemm!nt-ov.ned dogs
used for Iawenforcerm1l. AD o1her licensing provisioos shaD lJRlIy.
h. Upoo acceptance Of the license awlicatim and fee, the Picensing authority] shall issue a
durable license tag including an identifying nuntler, yew of issuance, city, county, and state.
Both rabies and license tags must be attacl1ed 10 1he collar Of 1he dog or caUl Tags Il1JS\ be
worn at an tm1es and are mttransferable.(l.icensi1g authority] shall mainlain a record of an
licenses issued, and such records shan be available to the (animal cootrol authority].
Section 1 Permils
a. ::= :~ate an aninaI estmIisIrnenI witJwt frst obtaining a permit in corrplf-
b. The permit period sflall begi1 with the Or.;t day of the fiscal )ellr and shall rm forone (1) year.
Renewal awlicatioos for permits may be made within sixty (60) days prior to the expiratioo
date. Awlication for a permit to establish a new keeding aninal estmIishnen! under the
prwisioos Of this ordinance may be made at any time.
c. Annual penni1S shall be issued lplI1 payment of the applicable fee:
L For each kernel authorized to hOuse less 1han six (6) dogS or cats
U. For each kernel authorized 10 hOuse six (6) but rot more than
forty-fline (49) dogS or cats $_
iii. For each kennel authorized to hwse fifty (50) or more dogs and cats $_
iI. For each pel sIq> $
v. For other animal establisl1mellts $
d. A person who maintains a kernel Of six (6) or more dogS or cats for breeOllQ ~rposes may
pay an arrual permit fee or may elect to license inDIVidual dogS or cats as provided under
.
.
Sectoo 2. Evay facility regulated by this ordinance shall be considered a separate enter-
prise. requiring an individual permit
e. Under the provisioos 01 this ordinance, m permit fee shall be required of any animal shelter.
An 01l1er prwisioos shall awJy. AIr; change in the categay LIlder which a permit is issued
shall be reported to the IIicensing aUlhorily] within sixty (60] days. wIlereupoo reciassffica-
too and appropriate ad~ Of the permit fee sflall be made.
f. FaiUTe to ClJll1lly with the prwisions 01 this sectioo is subject 10 a f..., of $_.
Section 4.1ssua11ce and revocation af penaits and licmses
a. The (appropriate authority] may rl!Vlt:e any permit or license lithe person holding the per-
mil or license refuses or fails 10 COI11lIY with this ordinance. the regulatioos prOOlJIgated by
the (appropriate authority] or arty other law governing the proteClioo and keeping of animals.
b. If an aRJIicant is shown to have withheld or falsified arty material infmnatioo 011 the appI;.
cation, the (licensing authority] may refuse to issue or may revoke a pemil or license.
c. It shall be a condition Of issuance of arty permit for an animal establishment that the lappro-
priate authority] shaD be permined to inspect any and aD animals and the premises v.f1ere
such animals arc kepi at any reasal8ble tine lUing normal business hours. Where a per-
mit is rewked for any cause, or pending appeal of arty such action, the (appropriate author-
ity] shall have power Of entry on lhe premises and il1lO aD areas where animals are being
kept. A person denied a permit may rot reawJy 1br a period Of at least thirty (3ll) days. EacI1
r~p1icatioo shall disclose arty previous denial or revocatioo and shall be aCCllllllll1ied by
a $_ fee.
Sedion 5. Owner responsiIIility
a. Allllo!!.s and cats shan be kepi lrIder restraint
b. Every dangerOuS" dog or cat. as determined by the lawropriate authorityl shall be coo-
fll1l!d by lis OIMler wiIhiI a building or SI!ClJ'e enclosure and shan be sewreIy IWZ1Ied or
caged whenever off the premises of lis 0IMlef.
C. No dog or cat shan be allowed 10 cause a nuisance. The OIMler of lNery do!l or cat shall be
held responsiIlIe 1br rNery behaviorof !llchdog or cat lrIder 1he provisions of this ordinance.
d. FailJ'e 10 comply willi the provisioosOfll1is sectioo shall be ~ toa f...,of$_.
e. Dog and cat owners shall erlSlJ'e that thei' dog or cat carries identifICation atall tm1es in the
form Of microchip, tag. or olher means to aUow easy determinatioo of the owners.
lives10ck guarding dogs shall be exefl1ll from BJisance regulatioos when pe10rming l1ities
prolecting livesIod 00 premises owned or COI1lTOIIed by the owner.
Section 6.1mpaInlllIer&
a. AIr; dog or cat fluld ru1I1ing at large shall be impoII1ded by the laninaI contrOl authority] in
an animal shelter and confllled in a Iunane mamer. hrlllediately upon inpolnfll1Q a dog
or cat, the (animal COl11rOI authority] shan make rNery reasonable effOl1 to nolify 1he owner
and inform such owner of the conditioos whereby custody 01 the animal may be ~ined.
Dogs and cats rot cIained by their owners within a period Of IfM! (5) full daysl'l in I\frich the
shelta' is qlI!Il to the fllblic shan beclIlle the properly of the (;sisdictioo].
b. When a dog or cat is found ruming at large and lis ~ip is verified by the (animal coo-
trol authority1the authority may exercise the optm or serving the owner with a nolice or
violatim in foeu of irrplUl1dllg the animal.
c. In the _ that lI1e lappropriate authority] finds dogs or cats to be sufferin~ it shall have
the right forthwith to remove or cause to have removed any such animals to a safe place 1br
cae at d1e owner's expense or to euthanatize them when necessary to prevmt fII1her suf-
fering. Return to the owner may be withheld lI1IiIthe owner shan have made full payment for
all e"Jll!l1Sl!s so incurred.
d. Disposal of an animal by any ITI!Ihod specified here in OOes rot rerll!Ve 1he owner Of liability
for IrioIations am arty accrued charges.
Section 7.lledeIIIpIim
a. AIr; animal impounded may be redeemed by theolM1l!r thereof will1in fM! (5) dayS upon pay-
ment Of an inpOJndment tee of $_, provided that II arty such animal has been previous-
ly irnpou1ded, the impoundrrent fee shaD be $_ . Payment 01 inpWndment fees is rot
coosidered 10 be in lieu of arty f..." penalty, or license fees.
b. AIr; animal coofll1lld for rabies """antine, evidence, cr other purpose may be redeemed by
the owner thereof upoo payment of a fee Of $_.
c. No animal r~~edto be licensed or vaccinall!d LlI1derthisordinance maybe redeemed until
prwisioos for such licensing have been fuUiIled.
Section a. AdopIion
An adoplioo fee Of $_ shall be assessed at the time of adqJIin No dog or cat shan be
released for adoption as a pet withwt being neutered or withwt a written agreement Iimlthe
adopter guaranteeing that the aninal will be neutered. Vaccinatim fees, licensing fees, and vet-
erina'y costs may be assessed above and beyml the ~ fee.
Sections. __
No pe<soo shall interfere with, hinder, cr ITDIcst I!lIT'J agmt of the (animal cmtrol authority) in the
pe1mnance of arty Wly as herein provided.
Any person violating this sectioo shall be deemed ~itty or a rriSden1!8OOr and shall be suf!ject 10
a rill! of not less than $_ or II'()llllhan $_.
Section 1o.III!peals (anr~ ardinallalS)
All other oolinances of the (;sisdictioo] that are in C01flict with this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such C01flict
Section 11. SeIeraIliIity
If any part Of this aDlI18I1Ce shan be held invalid. !llch pM sflall be deemed severable and the
invalidity thereof shan not alfeclthe remaining parIS Of this ordinance.
Sedion 12. Appr.c.atJi1ity
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upoo the expiration Of dayS after lis passage and
JlAlIicatioo.
Sectian 115a1ety dllUSll
The (;sisdictioo)hereby fll1ds, delerrnines, and declares 1hat this ordinance is necessal) for 1he
irm1ediate p'eservation or 1he fUllic health, safety, and v.elfare Of 1he (,Uisdictim] and 1he inhal;
ilants 1hereof.
'For aU 0CCUTenCes of 11 COIllIIU1iIies should insert 1hei" appIicaIOO agency. IThe organizatioos
developing this roodeI ordinance reconmended that licensing tags show, in addition 10 the liCense
llJI1tJer.the City or county and Slate in which 1he aninaI is registered. This he\l5 to aneviale the
problem 01 an aninaI being Iell ...identifled or lIlClained becaJse it has been transported frllll
ale Slate to another and has ro reference to the issuing city or county 00 !he license tag. W1lhere
blanks are found without insertioos, COllllUlities should insert awrlCable fees or conditioos.
SDilTerentiallicense fees 1br neutered aninals SB'Ve as an incentiw! for responsille pel~.
IIBreakaway collars are reconmerded when tags are affIXed to collars VoOOl by cats. ,n is recog-
nized that holding periods will be determined to sorre degee by availability of facilities; however,
tt is in1Jortant 10 E!I1SlJ"e a reasmable opportunity for ov.ners to reclaim their dog or cat
1747
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001
Vet Med Today: Clmine Aggression Task Force
.
.
.
Appendix 3
Recommended data elements for reports of dog bites
Data element
Conanenl
Notifications of dog attacks on humans. . . A card or telephone report to be
submitted by those providing
care to the human victim
Name of victim
Address of victim
Telephone (home and work)
Parent contact information
(if a minor)
Incident date and time
Reported to whom
Date and time of report
Notifications of dog attacks on animals .. A card or telephone report to be
submitted by those providing
care to the animal victim
Owner of victim
Type of victim
Address of owner
Telephone (home and work)
Incident date and time
Name and address of owner
or custodian of attacking dog
Reported to whom
Date and time of report
For animal control investigations
Agency information
Case number
Report date and time
Incident date and time
Who reported the case
Report received by
location of incident
Victim information
Name
Breed Of animal)
Age and date of birth
Sex
Address
Telephone (home and work)
Parent contact information (if minor)
Rabies immunization status (if animal)
Owner information
Name
Age and date of birth
Sex
Address
Telephone (home and work)
Data elemenl
Commenl
Dog information
Name
Breed . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . .. .. .. . Indicate by whose designation
(eg, owner report. animal control
officer, law enforcement officer).
This is important if breed data are
to be interpreted.
Sex
Age
Weight
Reproductive status
Name of veterinarian
Rabies vaccination date
Rabies tag number
license number
Microchip number
Degree of confinement
at time of bite
. . . . . . . . . Identifying different forms of
confinement (eg, chaining.
tethering. electronic fence) is
important if risk associated with
these practices is to be assessed.
Prior incidents
Obedience training
Circumstances of the bite
Victim account
Owner's account
Witness account
(contact information)
Number of dogs involved. . . . . . . . Attacks by multiple dogs may
account for 20 to 30% of incidents.
Forms for these animals could be
given case numbers with a special
designation (eg, 123A. 123B).
Injury information
location of injury
Nature of injury
Severity of injury
Animal disposition
Quarantine location
Date of quarantine
Date to be released
Quarantined by
Euthanatized
Continued on next page.
1748 Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force
JAVMA, Vol 218, No. 11, June 1, 2001
Appendix 4
Model legislation for the identification and regulation of "dangerous" dogs
A.
.
Actions allowed by authorized persons prior to hearing
1. If any dog shall attact a person or domestic animal who was peaceably
conducting himself in any place where he may lawfully be, any person,
for the purpose preventing imminent injury or further injury, may use
such force as is required to stop the attack.
2. A police officer or peace officer acting pursuant to his statutory duties
may, where the threat of serious injury to a person or domestic animal is
i~minent and unjustified, use such force as is required to prevent such
Injury.
B. Definitions
1.
.
a. "Dangerous dog" means any dog which without justification attacks
a person or domestic animal causing physical injury or death, or
behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would believe poses
an unjustified imminent threat of serious injury or death to one or
more persons or domestic animals. A dog's breed shall not be con-
sidered in determining whether or not it IS "dangerous." Further,
b. No dog may be declared "dangerous"
i. If the ~g ':'Vas. protecting or defending a person within the
Immediate V1Clnrty of the dog from an attack or assault:
ii. If at the time the person was committing a crime or offense
upon the property of the owner, or custodian, of the dog;
iii. If the person was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the
dog, or in the past had teased, tormented, abused or assaulted
the dog;
iv. If the dog. was attacked or menaced by the domestic animal, or
the domestic animal was on the property of the owner, or cus-
todian, of the dog;
v. If the dog wa~ resporn!ing to pain or injury, or protecting itself,
Its kennels or Its offspnng;
vi. If the person or domestic animal was disturbing the dog's nat-
ural functions such as sleeping or eating.
vii. Neither growling nor barking, nor both, shall alone constitute
grounds upon which to find a dog to be "dangerous:
2. "Attack" means aggressive physical contact initiated by the dog.
3. "Serious injury" means any physical injury consisting of broken bones
or a perm~nently disfiguring laceration requiring either multiple stitches
or cosmetic surgery.
4. "Domestic animal" means any animal commonly kept as a pet in family
hooseholds in the. United States, including, but not limited to dogs, cats,
gUinea pigs, rabbits and hamsters; and any animals commonly lept for
companion or commercial purposes.
C. Hearing procedure
1. Any person may make a complaint of an alleged "dangerous" dog as
that term is defined herein to a police officer or peace officer of the
appropriate municip~lity. Such officers shall imm!ldiately inform the
complainant of hiS nlj/lt to commence a proceeding provided for in
Paragraph 2, immedialely below, and, if there is reason to believe the
dog is a "dangerous" dog, the officer shall forthwith commence such
proceeding himself.
2. Any person may, and any police officer, or peace offICer acting within
the scope of his statutory duties, shall make a complaint under oath or
affirmation of an allege lfangerous" dog as that term is defined herein to
any municipal judge or justice. Thereupon, the judge or justice, or hear-
ing panel subject to judicial review, shall immediately determine if there
IS probable cause to beheve the dog IS a "dangerous" dog and, if so,
shall issue an order to any police ollfcer or peace officer pursuant to
his statutory duties or animal control officer directing such offICer to
immediately. seize such dog and hold same pendingjudicial determina-
Mn as herein proVided. Wfiether or not the judge or justice, or hearing
panel subject to judicial review, finds there IS probable cause for sucli
seizure, he shall, within five (5) days and upon written notice of not less
than three (3) days to the owner of the dog, hold a hearing on the com-
plaint
D. Where a dog is determined pursuant to dear and convincing evidence at a
duly constitUted.hear!ng to ,be "dangerous," thejudge or juslice, or hearing
panel subject to judlcoaf reVieW, shalf reqUire the owner of Said animal to reg-
ISter such animal (with the appropriate Health Department or animal control
facility), and to provide prompt notification to (the appropriate Health
Department or animal control facility) of any changes in the ownership ofthe
animal; names, addresses and telephone numbers of new owners; any
change in the health status of the animal; any further instances of attack; any
claims made or lawsuits brought as a result of further instances of attack;
the death of the animal. In alfdition, the judge or justice, or heari"9 panel
subject to judicial review, may require any or all of the following, but Items 5,
6 and 1~, ~r anyone of them, may only be imposed where thilre has been
senous mJ ury to a person.
1. Indoors, when not alone, the dog be under the control of a person eigh-
teen (18) years or older. (provisions for the dog to be outdoors must also
be made.)
2. Outdoors and unattended, the dog be kept within a locked fenced area
from which it cannot escape.
3. When outdoors the dog must be attended and kept within a fenced area
from which it cannot escape.
4. When outdoors the dog must be attended and kept on a leash no longer
than six (6) feet and uni:ler the control of a person eighteen (18) years of
age or older.
5. When outdoors the dog must be attended and muzzled. Such muzzle
shall not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration
but shall prevent It trom biting any person or animal.
6. Outdoors and unattended, the dog must be confined to an escape-proof
kennel ohhe following description:
a. Such k!!nnel shall allow the dog to stand normally and without
restriCtiOn, and shall be at least two and one half (2.5) times the
length of the dog, and shall protect the dog from the elements.
b. Fencing materials shall not have openings with a diameter of more
than two (2) inches, and in the case of wooden fences, the gaps
shall not be more than two (2) inches.
c. Any gates within such kennel or structure shall be lockable and of
such design as to prevent the entry of children or the escape of the
animal, and when the dog is confined to such kennel and unattend.
ed such locks shall be kept locked.
d. The kennel may be required to have double exterior walls to prevent
the insertion of fingers, hands or other objects.
7. Placement of a sign or signs of a description and in places directed by
the judge or justice, advising the public of the presence and tenden-
cies of said animal.
8. Attendance by the dog and its owner/custodian at training sessions
conducted by a certified applied animal behaviorist, board certified vet-
~rinary behaviorist or other recognized expert in the field and comple-
tion of training or any other treatment as deemed appropriate by such
expert. The owners of the dog shall be responsible for all costs associ-
ated with the evaluation and training ordered under this section.
9. Neutering or sllllying of the dog at the owner's expense, unless med-
Ically contraindicated.
10. That the dog be permanently identified by tattooing or by injecting an
identification microchip, USing standarlf veterinary procedures and
practices, identiftcation number and the identification of the person per-
forming the procedure to be registered with the (appropriate health
department or animal control facility) as indicated above.
11. The procurement of liability insurance in an amount to be determined by
the judge or justice, but in no case in an amount of less than fifty thou-
sand dollars ($50,000), covering the medical and or veterinary costs
resulting from future actions of the dog (a determination of Iiabihty shall
be made in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction). This condition
may not be imposed if it is shown that no such insurance is available for
a reasonable premium.
12. If any of the above conditions ordered by a judge or justice, or hearing
panel subject to judicial review, are not complied with. the owner shall
be subject to a line of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
13. lr a further incident of attack occurs under such circumstances that the
dog, after a hearing as described above, is determined to be a "danger-
0us.. dog, the judge or justice, or hearing panel subject to judicial
review. may impose or reimpose any applicable directives listed above;
additionally, humane destruction of the dog may be ordered, but only
where the further incident involves serious Injury to a person.
Appendix 5
Suggested reading for professionals (numbers correspond to cited references)
Group
Public officials and community leaders
Veterinarians
Veterinary technicians
Physicians and nurses
Reference IlIImbers
4,6,8-9,10,12,14-16,18,20,27-28,30,32-47
1,4-10,12,14-16,27-28,30,32,35-36,39,41-73
7, 12. 16, 28, 43.45, 47, 50-57, 59,61, 63-64, 66-69, 74
4-6,8-10,12,14-15,27-28,30,32, 35-36,41,43,45-48,60,
70-71,73,75-76
4.0,10,12. 14-15, 27-28, 30, 35-36, 41-43, 51-55, 61, 66. 69, 71
.
Humane society/animal shelter/
rescue personnel
JAVMA, Vol 21B, No. 11, June 1, 2001
1749
Vet Med Today: Canine Aggression Task Force
Parks;Pavilion Tour Sample Database Document
hllp:1 Iservices.login-inc.com/parks/nonmembers/DatabaseSampledoc I.html
"
.
.
.
Ion
A
Y Parks PavilionSN
Parks Pavilion Sample Database Document
/lRelumto
"4 Home Page
Document #: 554779
Title: "17th Street Paw Park"
Author:
External Link: www.innovations.harvard.edu
Attributed To: Innovations in American Government
Last Updated: 05/17/2001
Summary:
Sarasota County's first leash-free "Paw Park" was opened after the County Commission passed an
ordinance requiring the removal of fecal matter at parks allowing dogs, and citizens requested more
parks be opened to dogs. Executive Director Walt Rothenbach challenged his staff to design a park
especially for leash-free dogs. Paw Park was planned, designed, and constructed over a three-month
period at the cost of $14,515 and was dedicated September 14, 1998, in Sarasota.
Document Text:
This program was an applicant in the 2000 Innovations in American Government Program which is
funded by the Ford Foundation and administered by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University. For more information on this program visit: www.innovations.harvard.edu or call the program
at 617-495-0557.
17th Street Paw Park
1. Describe the program. Please emphasize its creative and novel elements. What is the innovation?
The large growth of our urban areas has made open space for dogs increasingly scarce. Dog owners
comprise 28% of the American population. In the best interest of our park systems a compromise is
being reached to fulfill the needs of dog owners in our communities. Historically, local ordinances have
excluded dogs from park areas for a variety of reasons. This practice is beginning to change so that
pets and park users can coexist in public areas.
Sarasota County's first leash-free "Paw Park" was opened after the County Commission passed an
ordinance requiring the removal of fecal matter at parks allowing dogs, and citizens requested more
parks be opened to dogs. Executive Director Walt Rothenbach challenged his staff to design a park
especially for leash-free dogs. Paw Park was planned, designed, and constructed over a three-month
period at the cost of $14,515 and was dedicated September 14, 1998, in Sarasota.
From day one Paw Park was a great success. Thirty to sixty dogs are brought to the park daily and this
figure doubles on weekends. After opening Paw Park, staff started receiving requests for more canine
parks throughout the county. A second park opened in the Venice area April 27,1999.
As reported by our local newspaper, Sarasota county's canine parks could be considered a dog
heaven. They have doggie drinking fountains, a shower on a wooden deck for the pooches, free bags
available in dispensers for fecal matter, fire hydrants, and leash posts. There are also picnic tables, a
bulletin board, and lighting for night use. If a dog happens to get out of hand, there is a fenced area to
serve as the "time-out" cage.
Staff post doggie attendance forms at the park bulletin board daily. Comments on these forms from
citizens have been extremely positive. Executive Director Walt Rothenbach stated, "Of all the parks that
2/5/02 8:39 PM
Parkslavilion Tour Sample Database Document
http://services.login-inc.comlparks/nonmemberslDatabaseSampledoc l.html
.
.
.
20f3
have opened during my 36 year career with Sarasota County Government, I can truly say that Paw
Park has received the most favorable response and public support."
The department is planning two additional canine leash-free parks maybe more. This is the beginning
of a new era for dogs in Sarasota County.
2. What problem(s) does your innovations program address?
Sarasota County has a population of 321,000 citizens and many seasonal visitors. There had been an
outcry in the community for more areas to be provided for people to take their canines. Presently there
are over 80,000 dogs in Sarasota County.
An ordinance was passed in 1998 requiring pet owners to remove their dog's fecal matter deposited
upon those public areas designated for animals to be allowed. Citizens began at that time lobbying for
more areas to be created where they could take their dogs.
Parks and Recreation built the first leash-free park in the greater Sarasota Area in the Summer of
1998, and shortly thereafter, identified three other areas of the County to consider constructing dog
parks.
3. Cite the best verifiable evidence of the most significant achievements of the program.
Paw Park was selected as one of the Florida Recreation and Park Association Journal's outstanding
programs, and presented in the journal's Spring 1999 issue. As a result, 35 cities and counties have
requested packets of information on how to build such a park. A number of cities including Fort
Lauderdale and St. Petersburg, have sent staff to tour our dog parks. We forward 20+ pages of
information in each packet that includes: a brochure explaining our leash-free parks including park
rules, a list of amenities, and approximate cost to build ($15,000 and up) Site plan and aerial of a dog
park Editorials and newspaper articles Ordinance relating to dog park Comment sheet showing two
days of actual citizen comments Photos taken at Paw Park Sample dog park newsletter Bookmark
highlighting the dog parks Screen disk showing actual scenes of dogs at Paw Park.
Our comment sheets which are filled out daily by park users are a testament to the popularity and
service we are providing the public. We have received many positive and interesting letters from our
citizens stating such things as, "one of the things that has impressed me is that you have made so
many changes as suggested by your comment sheet." Another local citizen that has been a long time
vocal opponent of county projects, was quoted in the newspaper as saying "This is the best thing the
commission has done in the 21 years I've lived here."
4. Who are the current and potential beneficiaries of your program? What are the direct or indirect
benefits to the citizens?
Any of our citizens owning dogs or visitors coming to Sarasota County with dogs can benefit from this
program. The large majority of dogs are on leashes or in cages or dwellings most of the day and night.
This provides a great opportunity for canine owners to let their dogs run loose in fenced areas two -- six
acres in size. Not only do the dogs have freedom to exercise, but make many social friends during their
visits to the park. The majority of the dog owners arrange their schedules to come at a specific time
each visit so their pets can play with the friends they have made at Paw Park. Owners tell us their dogs
really get excited while traveling to one of these parks.
Owners have established many new friends and dog clubs have been formed. Newsletters have been
established by users and the bulletin board is extremely popular. Parents have even arranged birthday
parties with participants bringing their dogs and scheduling appropriate activities.
5. How replicable is the program or aspects thereof? What obstacles might others encounter?
This program can easily be implemented by others and is an excellent win, win. After an article was
published in the 1999 Spring issue of the Florida Recreation & Park Association Journal as an
"outstanding program" requests started coming in for information on how to develop such a park. Staff
put together a packet of information which includes 20+ pages 'of information about how to build a
2/5/02 8:39 PM
Park~'pavilion Tour Sample Database Document
;'
.
.
.
30f3
http://services.login-inc.comJparks/nonmemberslDatabaseSampledocl.html
leash-free dog park. Just in the past month packets have been requested by the Dallas Parks &
Recreation Department, Dallas, Texas; Lindenwold Borough, New Jersey; a citizen advocate in Kansas
City, Missouri; and several municipalities in Florida.
The packet contains everything anyone would need to develop a dog park for as little as $15,000.
Recipients have very few questions after receiving the packets.
6. List all current financial resources, with the dollar and percentage contributions for each for your
current operating budget. If applicable, include separate subtotals for public and private funds and
sources. Provide details of any unusual financial features not described elsewhere.
95% of the funding for our leash-free parks has come from the General Fund Account of our local
government. The remaining 5% has come from donations. The local commissioners are very
supportive of leash-free dog parks as a result of such positive public reaction, and have not questioned
funding the projects.
The park can be built on government owned land for as little as $15,000 Operating costs range from
$5,000 to $10,000 annually depending on the size of the dog park. They include: Staff to maintain park
on part-time basis, portable toilet (if permanent facilities are not available on adjacent park land),
disposable bags for fecal matter, electricity for lighting park area at night, water.
Contact Information:
Mr. Robert K. Conn
Manager
Parks and Recreation
6700 Clark Road
Sarasota, FL 34241
Phone: (941) 316-1206
Fax: (941) 316-1227
Email: bconn@co.sarasota.fl.us
/1ltetum to
"'J Home Page
Parks PavilionSM is produced by Login. Inc., @2002. All rights reserved. Login, Inc., 360 North Robert Street, Suite 500, St. Paul,
MN 55101. Toll Free 1-800-328-1921. Fax 651-222-6577. Local 651-222-6506.
2/5/02 8:39 PM