I am posting regarding a very contentious issue in most city parks. New York City health code stipulates that all dogs must be leashed when in a public place. In addition to local and state laws the ASPCA, Humane Society, American Kennel Club and the Center for Disease Control recommend leashing ones dog in public for, among many reasons, the protection of the animal. If my experiences in Prospect Park are any indication of what has become commonplace throughout the city, I presume that many cyclists have had problems with unleashed dogs while training, racing or riding casually.
Juniper Park Civic Association has set-up an online petition to compel the City of New York to enforce the current leash law in city parks. Dog owners unleashing their dogs in public places has caused numerous problems to people, dogs, wildlife and property. The detrimental effects of unleashed dogs in public places has only been aggravated by city officials encouraging scofflaws.
I urge anyone who has ever had a family member, pet or, they themselves, harassed, endangered or injured by unleashed dogs to sign the online petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/Juniper2/petition.html
You might also want to check out another blog set-up to document the problem, as well as, provide informational links:
http://brooklynparks.blogspot.com/
Unleashed dogs in parks
In Prospect Park, before 9:00 a.m., it is official policy to allow unleashed dogs in the big field. Has been for years.
After 9:00 they warn or ticket.
I would sign a petition for cars out of Central Park and for voting against the proposed parade regulations but for doggie leash law enforcement?? Why would I want dog owners getting harassed by the police? Many dogs are well behaved and, trained properly, are fine without a leash. Ever been to Europe? If a dog bites someone, that's a different story but should we push for 'enforcement of leash laws'? Please.
Besides, this really has nothing to do with cycling so take it somewhere else.
It does belong here, an unleashed dog ran out in front of me last year causing me to crash. The crash broke my collarbone. Unleashed dogs CAN be hazardous.
...and what shall we do about suicidal squirrels throwing themselves under the wheels?
...they're just playing chicken. they usually win.
don
"http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/05/squirrel_opera_singer/
Suicide squirrel in opera-hating kamikaze bike spoke mangle
A Helsinki squirrel dived into the bicycle wheel of passing opera singer Esa Ruuttunen, hospitalising him and killing itself.
The squirrel - apparently not an opera fan - ran headlong at Ruuttunen's spokes. Alarmed, the bicycling bass baritone hit the deck.
Instead of attending rehearsals for new Finnish opus Kaarmeen hetki (Hour of the Serpent), Ruuttunen attended casualty with concussion and a broken nose.
Fans of Scandinavian-language ""passion-laden thriller[s]"" looking forward to the aforementioned ""wild drama delving into the soul of a woman"" needn't begin a candlelit prayer vigil for Ruuttunen's recovery though. A Finnish National Opera spokeswoman told Reuters: ""He is not yet singing in rehearsals, but thinks he will be able to perform at the world premiere.""
Yesterday's tragically notable exception aside, things have been fairly quiet on the animal attack front this summer. We look forward to a resumption of full hostilities forthwith."
"See the following thread from SoundCyclists on an unfortunate collision between man and squirrel:
Subject: [SoundCyclists] Harvest Ride - Post Ride Accolade
Date: Sep 26, 2006 1:13 PM
""...He was face down in the road and not moving when I got there.""
Wow ! That's scary. Thank god for the helmet requirement.....I admit on a couple of hot days this year I rode sans helmet but then I started reading all these crash threads on the Bike Forums and now I just put it on regardless of the weather......
Scary stuff
I just heard that the squirrel lost it's head too......
Not sure what his injuries were. He was face down in the road and not
moving when I got there. He had good pulse and resp and was stunned but
coming around - he was pretty confused at that point. I came upon him less
than a minute after the fall so didn't look like he had any LOC - just
dazed and confused. Waited for police and EMS but left to continue ride
when they arrived so don't know anything else. Squirrel didn't survive by the way.
*************************
I assume you are talking about the rider on the far northern end of the 100K route. Not sure what ultimately happened to the him but I was the
second rider to come across him immediately after it happened and before police and EMS arrived. Evidently, he did not overshoot the downhill turn but instead was the victim of a freak accident when a squirrel ran across the road and under his rear wheel, causing him to go down. Another reason to have the contact number on the cue sheet/wrist band numbers since no one
on scene knew who he was and it could have been a lot worse.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 5:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [SoundCyclists] Harvest Ride - Post Ride Accolade
Yes, I too would like to thank everyone involved.
I was one of the few riders riding for Healthnet who was a sponsor of the
ride.
I thought the food and the folks at the rest stops were great.
The SAG wagon was highly visible which was reassuring.
Having the contact numbers on the course map was smart too.
I did the Hat City Cyclefest in June and had a mechanical problem and even
though I was carrying a cell phone I had no numbers to call.
On another note, I rode by another rider who had crashed and the police &
ambulance were there.
Was he ok ?
What had happened ?
It looked to me like me may have overshot a downhill turn and solo wrecked
??
Thanks again to all involved !!!
Joe
"
I'm with you Sherpa. As I am a fellow cyclist who also happens to be a dog owner, who's well behaved dog has run free in CP her entire life. This issue is one that has troubled me greatly in the past few weeks and I must say that I was really disappointed to see that a fellow cyclist whould not only drag this issue into our forum, but to do so as a solicitor for the enemy. An enemy, who if they had their way would force my family and other cyling/dog loving families out of the city.
I urge all club members not to sign this rediculous petition.
This does have to do with cycling as i know of two people on bikes who crashed because of unleashed dogs in Central Park. I've also seen dogs hit by cars on the 72nd street transverse, also twice, a most unpleasant experience.
Cars are predictable compared to unleashed dogs.
Thanks for the link, Rob. I just signed.
I just signed the petition too. Unleashed dogs in the Park is one of my 'pet peeves'.
And what do you propose to do about the dangers posed by the use of leashes?
My DOG vs YOUR dog
My CYCLING vs Your Cycling
My Park vs OUR PARK
The law is the law, love it or not, abuse it and you may pay the price $$$$$$.
Cyclists may not run, roll or by act of a higher power run a light....PERIOD
Dogs may not walk, run or fly by act of a higher power on the sidewalks, streets or parks unleashed unless in a designated doggie walk/run area.
Hey, I bike and I love dogs. I think the issue is that we all do what we want and when we want.
It's not the bike that is wrong, it's the rider.
It's not the dog that is wrong, it's the owner.
Ride smart your bike will thank you.
Be a good pet owner and keep them leashed, hey you may even get an extra lick on the face thanking you.
As far as those suicide squirrels go? hmmmmm, that's another thread.
Rob Marcus
According to Section 161.05 of the New York City Health Code, your dog has to be kept on a six-foot long leash when it’s in a public place:
“A person who owns, possesses or controls a dog shall not permit it to be in any public place or in any open or unfenced area abutting on a public place unless the dog is effectively restrained by a leash or chain not more than six feet long. “
Isn’t it amazing how self-absorbed and self-entitled so many people seem to be these days. The laws apply to others but not themselves.
It is for mutual protection that dogs remain leashed and controlled in public.
Personally, I’d prefer the dogs to be unleashed and most of the dog owners to be leashed.
"Oh heck, I could not resist an admonition to ""obey the law.""
http://www.cars-suck.org/littera-scripta/cmc.html"
Rob Marcus's reply seems to be one of the most logical. I had a cycling accident because of an unleashed dog. I love dogs, it's the irresponsible owners who cause problems. How do we determine which dog can be unleashed and which should remain restained? The health code is meant to protect both dog and human. In a less densely populated city it probably wouldn't be an issue.
Parkin, I do believe you're playing devil's advocate here.
LOL.
Yes, the cyclists will sign a petition against the dog owners whose unleashed dogs are crossing their paths and biting their calfs. Then the dog owners will sign a petition against cyclists who speedily wheel over their dogs. Then young mothers will sign a petition against the park musicians who wake up their babies with their trumpets. Then the roller skaters will sign a petition against horse carriage owners whose horses' manure gets stuck between their little wheels, and then it will be endless -- a cute local warfare between different groups of park visitors, all screaming for their lives to be regulated by the authorities.
A good friend of mine is a dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac. Every night he lies awake in his bed wondering if there is a dog.
"""I wouldn't take a knight out on a dog like this...""
- Ralph Kramden"
As I was speeding down the hill towards Coney Island Avenue yesterday, an unleashed dog pranced out into the road right in front of me. I grazed it with my shoe at about 31 mph. A centimeter or so different, I might have had to have been scraped off the pavement. Neither I nor a pair of speed skaters behind me noticed an owner.
...i can't believe ANY organization would try to get laws changed to allow leashless dogs in a metropolitan area. it's not fair to the dog (if they get hurt) or the person who runs into them. if i ever get into an accident because of an unleashed dog, the owner better run...fast.
don
What hill ? In Prospect Park ? that's the only one near
CIA I can think of. I had an incident there with an unleashed squirrel 2 weeks ago, but there was no owner in sight.
"I suffered a separated shoulder in an accident caused by a dog running in front of my bike. I will have adverse effects from the accident for the rest of my life, so that the subject is hardly trivial.
I've sued the person walking the dog, as well as the owner under the leash law. That law is Section 161.05(a) of the NYC Rules and Regulations, and provides:
""(a) A person who owns, possesses or controls a dog shall not permit it to be in any public place or in any open or unfenced area abutting on a public place unless the dog is effectively restrained by a leash or chain not more than six feet long.""
It's my contention that both have liability under the leash law.
"
"...I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night and practiced law this morning on my bicycle.
Only kidding folks. But for the deep thinkers among you, let me ask a few remarkably thoughtful questions:
1. If I am walking down the street and a a dog in front of me on a less-than-six-foot-leash suddenly runs across my path-- and I trip over the leash -- (this actually happened) would I have been better off if the dog had been unleashed?
2. What if I am a bicycle owner who is training a pet Siberian husky, (who by instinct likes to pull things) and I attach the dog's leash to my handlebars and let him pull me up Heartbreak Hill on the northern end of Central Park? Who should get after me, threaten to sue me, or curse me out: a) Other bicyclists jealous of my all-organic, non-petrol-burning assist? b) Dog owners jealous that I am able to give my dog maximum VO2 exercise while their dogs are still either running free or walking attached to a leash? 3) PETA?
3. What if I train my dog to stand on my trunk rack (across which I've attached a small board) with his front paws on my shoulders while I ride? Am I in violation of the law because the dog is not leashed? Shall, may, or can I be arrested/summonsed/scolded by a) a police officer? b) a park guard in a Smokey The Bear Hat? c) The Parks Commissioner? D) Bruce Smolka of the NYPD (why not drag *him* into this ridiculous argument, too?)
4. Does the answer to the above question change if the dog is wearing a helmet? Does the answer to the issue of unleashed dogs change if the dogs are wearing muzzles? Does the answer to the issue of muzzled dogs change if the dogs are leashed?
5. If my chains and U-locks have consistently been broken and my bicycle has disappeared consistently as a consequence – and I then get a big, vicious looking dog to stand guard while I leave my bike unlocked..who has, shall have, or may have cause for complaint? a) The burgler who tries to steal my bicycle and gets bitten by the dog? b) Anyone who's sitting up reading this board at 4 am and worrying about it? c) Dog bloggers? d) Bike bloggers? e) Horses? (We haven't even begun to talk about unleashed horses, much less mountain bikes on the bridal path. Well, there is or was a thread on horse manure, but the stuff in the roads is nothing compared to some of the stuff popping up on this board lately.)
6. Final question: What is this entire, huge threadful of rants, cross-rants, counter rants, and counter-counter rants mostly concerning dogs doing on a bike club bulletin board and why is it going on for so long?
""When I say 'Sit,' don't you dare tell me 'Arf!'""
--Klepsovic the Dog Trainer
Your Pal,
Etoain Shrdlu
"
"...I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night and practiced law this morning on my bicycle.
Only kidding folks. But for the deep thinkers among you, let me ask a few remarkably thoughtful questions:
1. If I am walking down the street and a a dog in front of me on a less-than-six-foot-leash suddenly runs across my path-- and I trip over the leash -- (this actually happened) would I have been better off if the dog had been unleashed?
2. What if I am a bicycle owner who is training a pet Siberian husky, (who by instinct likes to pull things) and I attach the dog's leash to my handlebars and let him pull me up Heartbreak Hill on the northern end of Central Park? Who should get after me, threaten to sue me, or curse me out: a) Other bicyclists jealous of my all-organic, non-petrol-burning assist? b) Dog owners jealous that I am able to give my dog maximum VO2 exercise while their dogs are still either running free or walking attached to a leash? 3) PETA?
3. What if I train my dog to stand on my trunk rack (across which I've attached a small board) with his front paws on my shoulders while I ride? Am I in violation of the law because the dog is not leashed? Shall, may, or can I be arrested/summonsed/scolded by a) a police officer? b) a park guard in a Smokey The Bear Hat? c) The Parks Commissioner? D) Bruce Smolka of the NYPD (why not drag *him* into this ridiculous argument, too?)
4. Does the answer to the above question change if the dog is wearing a helmet? Does the answer to the issue of unleashed dogs change if the dogs are wearing muzzles? Does the answer to the issue of muzzled dogs change if the dogs are leashed?
5. If my chains and U-locks have consistently been broken and my bicycle has disappeared consistently as a consequence – and I then get a big, vicious looking dog to stand guard while I leave my bike unlocked..who has, shall have, or may have cause for complaint? a) The burgler who tries to steal my bicycle and gets bitten by the dog? b) Anyone who's sitting up reading this board at 4 am and worrying about it? c) Dog bloggers? d) Bike bloggers? e) Horses? (We haven't even begun to talk about unleashed horses, much less mountain bikes on the bridal path. Well, there is or was a thread on horse manure, but the stuff in the roads is nothing compared to some of the stuff popping up on this board lately.)
6. Final question: What is this entire, huge threadful of rants, cross-rants, counter rants, and counter-counter rants mostly concerning dogs doing on a bike club bulletin board and why is it going on for so long?
""When I say 'Sit,' don't you dare tell me 'Arf!'""
--Klepsovic the Dog Trainer
Your Pal,
Etoain Shrdlu
"
Dogs have been known to chase cyclists and I know of at least 2 who were attacked by off-leash dogs. Rollerbladers and joggers sometimes get chomped on too. I would urge all people who use the park to sign the petition. Otherwise, when it is you who are bitten, it will be you, the victim, who gets blamed just like they did!
In, I think it was, 1985, I was riding up the shore of Lake Iseo, towards the Gavia Pass when, in the distance, I saw a dog after it first saw me. It put on its bib, tied it around its neck so as to not drool my remains over its belly, picked up a knife and fork, licked its tongue in anticipation of my arrival, and waited for his first really good meal in, oh, I'm thinking a year, maybe two.
A driver behind me surmises exactly what is about to take place, speeds up, interposes his car between the dog and me, and slows down to my speed until I'm safely beyond being that dog's dinner.
That was the most gracious, most understanding, kindest thing that has ever happened to me on a bike. I hope the driver understood my mere wave as being an exposition of gratitude for his giving me the remaining years of my life.
Meanwhile, in the receding distance, the dog gave me the finger.
Denuded of its hyperbole, this story is true.
There are designated areas/hours for dogs to be offleash in the parks. The dogs are NOT a problem when in their designated areas. I have actually NEVER seen a loose dog on the roadway in either park in the many many miles I've ridden (though apparently some of you have) Loose dogs in the country/suburbs are a whole different story. Also, I believe this petition wants to ban dogs offleash in DOG RUNS-- fenced in designated area in parks -- and that is just dog-hating baloney and I would like to set my dog and my bike loose on anyone who signs that damn thing.
Maggie,
Not one person involved in the above mentioned petition has ever stated that they have a problem with fenced dog runs. In fact, it is just the opposite. Before forming an opinion do yourself a favor and read some of the articles on:
http://brooklynparks.blogspot.com
At least then you'd have some basis for your comments.
Accusing me of hating dogs (or any animal) is just plain silly. My wife has even been raising money for animals orphaned by Katrina.
Maggie,
Why don't you read the petition before you threaten petition signers. And other than fenced-in dog runs, there are NO designated hours/areas for dogs to be off leash in the parks.
By the way, I'm a dog owner too.
"Maggie, Why do dog owners have to turn to threats of violence? Dogs get their personalities and attitudes towards others from their owners. I would think that your dog is one of those hostile, aggressive ones who are so dangerous when off-leash.
There IS a leash law. It's straightforward. It applies to all dogs, in al public places. There is no ""official"" off-leash policy. Never has been. Don't believe that? Point to where it is printed. Better still, start a petition to have Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe, put it in writing and sign it publicly.
He won't do that? Is that because such a policy would be illegal? It would put the city smack in the center of lawsuits for permitting unleashed dogs to attack.
The disabled, the infirm, have full rights to go anywhere in any park at any time without being prevented from their tax-paid and ADA protected access by any dog owner out to ""exercise"" or ""socialize"" their dog.
Dog owners: put the dog on a leash and walk with the dog, for miles if necessary, until you both get all the exercise you require.
There are people whose religious beliefs forbid contact with any dog. Dog owners: Should these people's First Amendment rights be superseded on behalf of you? What rights are you prepared to forever surrender?
This is all serious stuff. Dogs are great pets and companions, as well as useful for a multitude of people. But, an attack, a chase, a bite, piles of dog poop, are all serious. All dog owners must obey the law or be punished, just as all auto drivers must obey the traffic laws. What's so difficult to understand about this concept?
Will those who disagree with this - even a hearty disagreement - stick to the facts, the law, and show some compassion for the disabled, and those with religious beliefs? Really avoid anger, threats, and emotional comments."
"BMV, above, wrote ""There are people whose religious beliefs forbid contact with any dog. ...
There are? I'm sincerely interested in learning that. What religion forbids contact with a dog? And, since you seem informed on the subject, I'm sincerely interested in learning the reason within that religion for it.
BMV asked,""Should (their) First Amendment rights be superseded (by dog owners)?""
Lastly, I'm also sincerely interested in learning how this arises to government abridging or promoting the practice of a religion in an impermissable way. In your answer please account for the Parks Dept. permitting unmarried men and women in the park to socialize together since that also violates the precepts and practice of a religion."
"Anyone with a sincere interest in learning which religion(s) forbid contact with any dog, would actually look up the easily available facts before disputing them.
The NYC Parks Department uses taxes to operate. The taxes are local, state and federal. The NYC Parks Department apparently has some hidden, unwritten policy that only dog owners know and understand, that dogs can run unleashed during ""certain"" hours. Parks Department often refers to this policy, it even is currently defending it in court, so there must be a policy.
That policy permits dogs to run unleashed. Because dogs might be anywhere in any park, at any time, under the control of no one, they might contact the practitioner of a religion that forbids such contact.
So, by implication of this policy, the NYC parks have become inaccessible to those whose religion makes this contact impermissible.
Therefore, the government has established laws that prevent such a practitioner from using tax-paid facilities. They are effectively denied access to the parks.
Now, if the Parks Department permits unmarried men and women to use the park, and those couples use the park for purposes forbidden by their religion, that is for the couples and their religion to reconcile, not the government. On the other hand, of the same Parks Department were to forbid the use of parks by unmarried couples in order to prevent behavior unacceptable to some religion (which religion? which behavior?) then there would be a violation of the couple's First Amendment rights because the Parks Department would be establishing religious precepts - forbidden by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Parks Department rescinds the unwritten off-leash policy, thereby making the tax-paid parks accessible to people of any and all religions, no violation occurs, since it was the imposition of the policy in the first place that was the violation. The rescission is the cure.
Now, again: Should First Amendment rights of parks users ever be superseded by dogs or dog owners? It's actually an easy question."
"I would take this offline rather than subject readers of the MB to this but for the fact you are anonymous.
And reading your reply above, maybe I understand why.
I asked a simple question: which religion(s)? You know--or seem to: so why not do the simple thing and declare which? That would take one word: the name of the religion. Instead you chastise me for sloth or insincerity. OK, I'll play your game. What words do you suggest I put into a search? ""Dog"" and ""religion"" isn't helpful.
...But, then, neither is your analysis of the First Amendment."
Both. Sloth AND insincerity.
You're just not trying. People are laughing at you. Figure out the search argument on you own. If I could do it, so can you.
Let's read your analysis of the First Amendment. Or, if my analysis is unhelpful, let's read your point-by-point rebuttal. Can you at least do that?
What I think is that you're using your insincerity, sloth, and ignorance to avoid addressing the issue raised. It's an old trick, used over the centuries by adolescents and laggards.
"Yeah, right, like I almost believe you read this thread then thought, hmmm, lemme do a google search and see if, just maybe, there might be some religion that forbids contact with a dog, then sat at your computer going from A(gnostic) to Z(oroastrianism).
You're so insistent that there is one that I think maybe there is and you, of course, know it but choose to not disclose it out of...out of...what? Embarrassment for being a practitioner of it? Please don't be embarrassed, Anonymous Bob: all religions are filled with irrationality and myth.
On the other hand, no religion I know worships the perpetuation of ignorance about itself; no religious person I know promotes ignorance about his religion. Well, no, apparently you do.
Meanwhile, why not take your grievance to the ACLU (of which I'm a longtime active member) and have them sue the City of New York over this supposed violation of the Constitution? It's a wonderfully imaginative law suit. No kidding. When they spurn you, why not have your religious institution do it? The legal environment under Bush is perfect for giving religion a sympathetic hearing in court. In fact, let me help you with your suit: shop for a sympathetic jurisdiction in which to bring it. I warrant you, if dogs are permitted off a leash in Central Park in violation of your constitutional rights, they will be permitted off a leash in Staten Island. Bring your suit in Staten Island, the most conservative borough. Or, if the religion is, presumably, orthodox Judaism, bring it in Brooklyn. After all, it was Noach Dear, on behalf of the Hasidic community, who successfully got the city to withdraw its planned bike path through, I think it was Boro Park or whatever is that largely Hasidic community on the basis that cyclists wear skimpy clothing and that is an effront to Hasidim or orthodox in general.
Unfortunately, when you lose and appeal, your suit will find its way to a more liberal court...but, hell, man, if you'll stick with it and can find a federal court to take it, and persevere past all the adverse rulings, and if you can get the Supreme Court to take it--you're home!
Please send me an address, anonymous or otherwise, for you: I'd like to start the ball rolling with a $1 contribution.
Don't want it? OK, how about a FREE phone call to Judicial Watch? They're EXACTLY the group you want to take this forward and, god knows, if they won't, nobody will. Call them, toll FREE!, at (888)593-8442. Write them c/o their president, Tom Fitton, at Box 4444, Washington, D.C. 20026. I warrant you, they would LOVE to bring an action against the City of New York over religious practices grounds.
And if you win, you'll have achieved lasting fame in legal history. Think of it: there's Marbury. And Brown. And Jane Roe. And alongside them, Bob of Middle Village! Like-minded people in jurisdictions from Bangor to San Diego, from Seattle to Miami will sing your praises as theyh piggyback on your magnificent victory since, you may be sure, dogs are off leash in every municipality in the U.S. (except those under the governance of whatever religion you have in mind that runs itself theocratically, me.g. Kiryat Joel).
As for ""people laughing at me,"" yeah, right again: “I have in my hand here a list of communists in the State Department” (if you get that historical reference”).
Since you insistently continue to hide behind your anonymity, have one of those people with whom you spoke in the few, late hours between my writing and your replying, contact me...unless s/he, too, hides behind anonymity: maybe s/he and I can move this forward a bit—and absent the vacuous insult that seems to be your métier.
In the meantime, since I struggle to find the relevance of this to cycling, shouldn't this be where I first wrote this should be and sought it: off the MB?
"
He's referring to Islam, and it really is easy to find through Google. Use 'religion dog unclean'.
And the offleash hours in Prospect Park are on the Prospect Park website which explains how they could do it. Use 'Prospect Park leash'.
There, that took 5 seconds, max. But I'm sure both of you really enjoy wasting your time. Sorry if this puts an end to your fun. I just can't figure out which is the kettle, and which is the pot!
This is what happens in rainy weather when the rides are cancelled and everyone is stuck home with a comp pouring his frustration out onto the message board...regardless of the subject.
That's right.
Whatev. You're not obligated to read it.
Since you really have nothing to say, I'll be brief.
My initial reaction to your childish rant was to understand you as a dangerous, religion-hating buffoon.
Now, after reflection, it's clear that you are not dangerous.
Just a lazy, ignorant, ranting fool, with no thoughts to write about.
People - even commies - are laughing at you for being so ineffectual.
"It may not be enshrined in the law books, but in Prospect Park dogs may run free before 9:00 a.m. in the large cener area, without any tickets or warnings by enforcment personel.
While some religions consider dogs ""unclean,"" I don't think anyone goes straight to hell if spot brushes up against them."
"you mentioned ""In Prospect Park, before 9:00 a.m., it is official policy to allow unleashed dogs in the big field. Has been for years. After 9:00 they warn or ticket."" was that a mis-statement? :)
don"
"It is not ""official"" policy as it would be in direct conflict with the NYC Health Code. In my experience, most dog owners interpret the ""courtesy hours"" as meaning anywhere in the park. Instead of relying on opinions or half-truths please go to:
http://brooklynparks.blogspot.com
There are links to the laws, Commissioner Benepe's statements on the leash law, our rights and the opinions of professional organizations that protect animal rights. There are also several photos that illustrate some of the problem."
"...at least quote the whole regulation.
Those who oppose the Offleash Hours policy frequently try to quote Section 161.05 of the New York City Health Code (informally known at the ""Leash Law.""), yet they often only quote Paragraph A of the code which says:
""A person who owns, possesses, or controls a dog shall not permit it to be in any public place...unless the dog is effectively restrained by a leash or a chain not more than six feet long.""
However, Paragraph B of the code makes it clear that the Parks Commissioner has full discretionary power on how to enforce the leash rules in the New York City Parks.
Here is the relevant section of Paragraph B:
""Notices of violation for failure to comply with this section may [emphasis added] be issued by....The Department [of] Parks and Recreation.
In law or legislation, use of the word ""may"" rather than the word ""shall"" has a very specific meaning. The word ""shall"" means that the provision is mandatory. The word ""may"" means that the provision is discretionary--in this case by the Parks Department, which is led by the Parks commissioner.
The framers of the amended 2003 Leash Law (working over 15 years after Offleash Hours were instituted in NYC), used the word ""may"" rather than ""shall"" because they clearly had the legal intent to carve out an exception for Offleash Hours in New York City Parks, according to the discretion of the Parks commissioner.
Three successive New York City Parks commissioners have strongly supported Offleash Hours and the law clearly gives them the authority to relax the Health Code in the parks at their discretion.
In addition to the Health Code, Section 1-04(i) of the Rules of the City of New York states:
""[N]o person owning or possessing any animal shall cause or allow such animal to be unleashed or out of control in any park except as permitted by the [Parks] Commissioner [emphasis added].""
There could be no greater expression of discretionary authority than this rule. The Parks Dept. Offleash Hours policy is clearly an exercise of discretion conferred upon the Parks Commissioner by Section 1-04(i) of the Rules of the City of New York.
See the NYCdog Memorandum of Law (in particular pages 12-16) for a detailed legal argument supporting the legality of park Offleash Hours.
This document can be found at http://www.nycoffleash.com/html/threat.htm
"
