News

Palo Alto to adopt new rules for dog parks

City looks to set new limits on dogs per person, change hours of operation

As Palo Alto prepares to open new dog parks in the coming year, the city is also unleashing new rules that dog owners will have to obey when using these facilities.

The new rules, which Parks and Recreation Commission considered at its last two meetings and approved on Dec. 19, will limit the number of dogs a person can take to a dog park to three. The goal of the new restriction is to keep commercial dog walkers from dominating the new structures – a problem that has been prompting a growing number of resident complaints, said Daren Anderson, manager of the Open Space, Parks and Golf Division at the Community Services Department.

The new restriction was proposed by a subcommittee that included several parks commissioners, staff and a few dog owners. The group, Anderson said, felt it was "not reasonable for someone to bring more than three dogs to the dog park and to be able to supervise those dogs."

"It just isn't possible to take six dogs and really be looking after them, and being sure you're picking up after them," Anderson told the commission at the Nov. 28 meeting, where the new rule was introduced.

The rules are being revised as part of the city's effort to open more dog parks in the coming year. The new parks master plan calls for up to six such facilities, and plans are already underway to open a dog park at Peers Park early this year. The Parks and Recreation Commission advanced that effort on Nov. 28, when it approved a park-improvement ordinance to enable the new off-leash area.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

In addition, the city is hoping to expand and improve its three existing dog exercise areas at Mitchell, Greer and Hoover parks.

With the number of dog parks set to increase, parks staff felt the time was ripe to overhaul the rules, which it did with the help of the stakeholder group.

The new rules will also bring new hours to the dog parks. Currently, the facilities are officially open from sunrise to 10:30 p.m. Under the new rules, they will be open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Anderson told the parks commission that during the summer, sunrise can take place as early as 5:30 a.m., which some feel is too early to have dogs running around at the park.

Another new rule governs the separation of big and small dogs. The new Peers Park will have separate areas for dogs of different sizes and one issue that the group debated was the threshold for determining "small" dogs.

Initially, the commission considered limiting the small-dog area to those weighing 35 pounds or less. After further discussion and consultation with acting Animal Services Superintendent Cody Macartney, the group lowered it to 25 pounds. Anderson said the revision was based on the very large number of "toy dogs" in Palo Alto, some of which weigh considerably less than 25 pounds.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Another new rule would bar dogs with pronged collars from the exercise areas. Proposed by Commissioner Ryan McCauley, a dog owner who served on the rules subcommittee, the rule was added at the Dec. 19 meeting with the unanimous consent of his colleagues.

"I think some people who have their dogs in their pronged collars don't realize that when the dogs are playing with each other, another dog can be injured by the pronged collar," McCauley said at the meeting, explaining his proposal.

Other rules are largely consistent with what's been on the books for years – including requirements that owners pick up the dogs' waste and restrain aggressive behavior. As before, dogs will only be allowed off leash within the designated exercise areas. They must be licensed, vaccinated and wearing a collar with an ID and a license tag.

And dog owners "must remain in the fenced area and monitor and manage their dogs at all times." This includes keeping the dogs leashed until they are within the dog park and returning them to their leashes before exiting.

The new rules won plaudits from the commission, which adopted them without dissent, setting the stage for the City Council to do the same. Howard Hoffman, a dog owner who worked with staff to create the new rules, praised both the "inclusive" process for revamping the rules and the output.

"The improvement in the rules I think will be better for the people and the dogs of Palo Alto," Hoffman said.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Gennady Sheyner
 
Gennady Sheyner covers the City Hall beat in Palo Alto as well as regional politics, with a special focus on housing and transportation. Before joining the Palo Alto Weekly/PaloAltoOnline.com in 2008, he covered breaking news and local politics for the Waterbury Republican-American, a daily newspaper in Connecticut. Read more >>

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Palo Alto to adopt new rules for dog parks

City looks to set new limits on dogs per person, change hours of operation

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Wed, Jan 3, 2018, 8:34 am

As Palo Alto prepares to open new dog parks in the coming year, the city is also unleashing new rules that dog owners will have to obey when using these facilities.

The new rules, which Parks and Recreation Commission considered at its last two meetings and approved on Dec. 19, will limit the number of dogs a person can take to a dog park to three. The goal of the new restriction is to keep commercial dog walkers from dominating the new structures – a problem that has been prompting a growing number of resident complaints, said Daren Anderson, manager of the Open Space, Parks and Golf Division at the Community Services Department.

The new restriction was proposed by a subcommittee that included several parks commissioners, staff and a few dog owners. The group, Anderson said, felt it was "not reasonable for someone to bring more than three dogs to the dog park and to be able to supervise those dogs."

"It just isn't possible to take six dogs and really be looking after them, and being sure you're picking up after them," Anderson told the commission at the Nov. 28 meeting, where the new rule was introduced.

The rules are being revised as part of the city's effort to open more dog parks in the coming year. The new parks master plan calls for up to six such facilities, and plans are already underway to open a dog park at Peers Park early this year. The Parks and Recreation Commission advanced that effort on Nov. 28, when it approved a park-improvement ordinance to enable the new off-leash area.

In addition, the city is hoping to expand and improve its three existing dog exercise areas at Mitchell, Greer and Hoover parks.

With the number of dog parks set to increase, parks staff felt the time was ripe to overhaul the rules, which it did with the help of the stakeholder group.

The new rules will also bring new hours to the dog parks. Currently, the facilities are officially open from sunrise to 10:30 p.m. Under the new rules, they will be open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Anderson told the parks commission that during the summer, sunrise can take place as early as 5:30 a.m., which some feel is too early to have dogs running around at the park.

Another new rule governs the separation of big and small dogs. The new Peers Park will have separate areas for dogs of different sizes and one issue that the group debated was the threshold for determining "small" dogs.

Initially, the commission considered limiting the small-dog area to those weighing 35 pounds or less. After further discussion and consultation with acting Animal Services Superintendent Cody Macartney, the group lowered it to 25 pounds. Anderson said the revision was based on the very large number of "toy dogs" in Palo Alto, some of which weigh considerably less than 25 pounds.

Another new rule would bar dogs with pronged collars from the exercise areas. Proposed by Commissioner Ryan McCauley, a dog owner who served on the rules subcommittee, the rule was added at the Dec. 19 meeting with the unanimous consent of his colleagues.

"I think some people who have their dogs in their pronged collars don't realize that when the dogs are playing with each other, another dog can be injured by the pronged collar," McCauley said at the meeting, explaining his proposal.

Other rules are largely consistent with what's been on the books for years – including requirements that owners pick up the dogs' waste and restrain aggressive behavior. As before, dogs will only be allowed off leash within the designated exercise areas. They must be licensed, vaccinated and wearing a collar with an ID and a license tag.

And dog owners "must remain in the fenced area and monitor and manage their dogs at all times." This includes keeping the dogs leashed until they are within the dog park and returning them to their leashes before exiting.

The new rules won plaudits from the commission, which adopted them without dissent, setting the stage for the City Council to do the same. Howard Hoffman, a dog owner who worked with staff to create the new rules, praised both the "inclusive" process for revamping the rules and the output.

"The improvement in the rules I think will be better for the people and the dogs of Palo Alto," Hoffman said.

Comments

Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2018 at 9:12 am
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2018 at 9:12 am

There is no mention of whether there is to be grass in these parks.

I have no dogs at present but have lived with dogs in the past. I would not take a dog to a park that has no grass and is so dusty in dry weather and muddy in wet weather as to mean that my dog would need to be bathed before coming back into the house.

I also can't understand the logic of driving a dog to somewhere to get exercise. My dogs were rarely if ever in the car, generally just to get to the vet.

One of the reasons I don't have dogs here is because I don't think there is anywhere suitable to exercise anything other than a 15 lb dog in your own backyard. You need to be able to get a dog to chase a ball and run at its own pace to enable it to get fully exercised. A well exercised dog is a much better behaved dog than one that is poorly exercised.

And while we are at it, please can long leashes be banned in our parks. I have seen too many dogs leashed on a long tether and tied to a fence while the dog walks around tying its tether around strollers or people's feet. This is not kind for the dog or the other park visitors, but dog owners feel that since the dog is "leashed" they are obeying the law and then pay very little attention to the dog.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2018 at 9:59 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2018 at 9:59 am

I hope that along with the new facilities and new rules there will be real enforcement. Current rules are constantly broken by certain dog owners who feel that other people are the problem, not them. The city seems to be trying to rely on social pressure to solve these problems. That doesn't usually work with the problem owners.


Dogs are not cats.
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 3, 2018 at 10:59 am
Dogs are not cats., Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Jan 3, 2018 at 10:59 am

Dogs need a lot of attention. If you don't have time to walk your dog multiple times a day and be good company for it (that means be generously and actively attentive and playful), find another kind of pet. Leaving dogs alone for hours (especially larger dogs) unexercised and unattended is brutally unkind and leads to bad dog behavior.

A dog is not just a companion for you, you must be an active companion to your dog.


Use the dog parks instead of schools
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jan 3, 2018 at 10:59 am
Use the dog parks instead of schools, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Jan 3, 2018 at 10:59 am

I hope the increase in dog parks will result in enforcement of off-leash dogs on school grounds. I'm tired of my Jordan kids coming home complaining about dog poop on the field during PE.


Tsk
Greene Middle School
on Jan 3, 2018 at 11:04 am
Tsk, Greene Middle School
on Jan 3, 2018 at 11:04 am

The new dog park won't change the fact that dogs will still defecate on my property and school grounds. A dog park is only helpful to the minority who use it. I'd like to see the numbers on how many use dog parks in this city of 60,000 residents.

The City Council should do something that helps more residents, like banning dogs on school grounds, 24/7. All the students are affected by feces on school grounds.


Resident
Gunn High School
on Jan 3, 2018 at 11:52 am
Resident, Gunn High School
on Jan 3, 2018 at 11:52 am

Does anyone know when the new rules take effect? I’m disappointed. I like having dog walkers at the park at a consistent time every day because I know my dog will have someone to play with. Also, the dog walkers I know have been very responsible and conscientious, and also helpful to other dog owners at the park in terms of giving advice, showing training techniques, etc.


Tom from Midtown
Registered user
Midtown
on Jan 3, 2018 at 1:49 pm
Tom from Midtown, Midtown
Registered user
on Jan 3, 2018 at 1:49 pm

I generally support separate areas for big and small dogs. Will there be a rule about the use of these areas, or will they be "advisory" in nature? I can see limiting the "small dog" area to those under a certain weight, while allowing owners of small dogs to put them in the "big dog" area at their discretion (and responsibility). I have a dog squarely in the middle, a French Bulldog who generally weighs in at 24-26 pounds. With a few exceptions he has never had a problem playing with big dogs (he doesn't seem to realize he isn't one of them), and none ever with small ones. From my experience at dogs parks around town, that seems fairly common.

But overall mad props to the city for expanding the number and improving the quality of dog parks.


Heather
Los Altos Hills
on Jan 3, 2018 at 2:05 pm
Heather, Los Altos Hills
on Jan 3, 2018 at 2:05 pm

Happy to see a small dog park going in, finally! Palo Alto is years behind other cities on the Peninsula. But, better late than never! I too am hoping for grass.

To the owner of the Frenchie ... you do indeed have a choice, and I would like to share with you my experience as owner of an elderly 4-pound chihuahua. When I see a Frenchie coming in, I have to leave but the sheer mass and momentum of those little guys -- very sweet mind you, but built like tanks! -- poses a danger to my little guy. It would be nice if owners of large in-betweeners could be considerate and take a look at who is in the park before deciding which side to take. Similar issue concerns large-breed puppies. Yes they can have a rough time on the large-dog side, but they also can wreak havoc on among small dogs. Your sensitivity is appreciated! Especially with small dogs having fewer options (fewer parks with areas for them).


Melinda
Midtown
on Jan 3, 2018 at 2:07 pm
Melinda, Midtown
on Jan 3, 2018 at 2:07 pm

And, what are these dog parks going to cost and who is going to pay for them? People complain about paying for school taxes. Why should we have to pay for other people’s dog maintenance? Let the dog owners pay for the parks. It shouldn’t be my responsibility.


Sonia
Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 3, 2018 at 4:50 pm
Sonia, Adobe-Meadow
on Jan 3, 2018 at 4:50 pm

Dog walkers provide a valuable service to Palo Alto residents. Has the committee studied the impacts to Palo Alto dog owners who work? The new rule may cause some dog walkers to leave. All the dog-walkers I have ever met at Mitchel Park have been responsible and respectful, and in full control of the dogs they brought with them. Please allow dog walkers to make a living in our community, and dogs to exercise and play, without adding unnecessary rules.


Juan
Mountain View
on Jan 3, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Juan, Mountain View
on Jan 3, 2018 at 6:27 pm

What's the point? Dog owners never follow the rules anyway, "all dogs must be on a leash" - if PAPD enforced that, there would be enough money to fund the pension shortfall and then some.

More useless rules that nobody will follow and nobody will enforce.


chris
University South
on Jan 3, 2018 at 8:07 pm
chris, University South
on Jan 3, 2018 at 8:07 pm

Increasing numbers of dogs are running off-leash at Heritage Park.

With the new parks opening up, will the rules about dogs at other parks be enforced?


InvisibleInk
Greenmeadow
on Jan 3, 2018 at 8:46 pm
InvisibleInk, Greenmeadow
on Jan 3, 2018 at 8:46 pm

For those of you whining about lack of enforcement, take your complaints up with the over-worked, under-staffed animal control officers and park rangers. Vote for increased taxes to fund more officers and ranger! Think of it as an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is.

And as for those dog owners complaining about the dog walkers "not cleaning up after," you are simply making that stuff up. You will have failed to observe them canvasing the park, cleaning up, not only after the dog's they brought, but after your dog when you failed to notice it pooping while you were glued to your smart phone's screen.

As for you responsible non-dog-owner tax payers who are loathe to pay for dog facilities, why not, while you're at it, discontinue all of those handicapped parking spots you illegally park in? After all, you're not crippled, so why should you pay for those?


bikermom
Mayfield
on Jan 3, 2018 at 8:47 pm
bikermom, Mayfield
on Jan 3, 2018 at 8:47 pm

I still think that the proposed dog park for peers park takes up too much of the part. kids have birthday parties all the time here and near that area and plus the kids like that back area to roam when soccer games go on. Yards and land are so small here we depend on nearby parks for our young children to roam. I'm not against the dog park. Actually people let their dogs roam back there anyway, which is fine with us as long as they pick up after themselves and keep an eye on their dogs. We don't own a dog but love them and my children love them. But we also love peers and often play catch back there and I let my kids roam and it gives them a sense of independence in this day in age where kids are on such a tight leash


Anonymous
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2018 at 9:06 pm
Anonymous, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 3, 2018 at 9:06 pm

Why are dog parks open earlier and later than Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Park? Aren't there closer neighbors to dog parks than to multi-acre parks in the foothills?


Jake
Midtown
on Jan 4, 2018 at 2:40 am
Jake, Midtown
on Jan 4, 2018 at 2:40 am

I am a former dogwalker and I will tell you:
The 3-dog limit is devastating to the business of dogwalkers.
Government needs to be more careful about how new rules affect people's ability to make a living.
Creating a new law based on a few resident complaints -- without looking at the big picture -- is irresponsible and will only lead to further gentrification and income inequality. Stop crushing small businesses, this is helping nobody.


To Jake above
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jan 4, 2018 at 5:08 pm
To Jake above, Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jan 4, 2018 at 5:08 pm

Can you take three dogs at the time?
Then come back with three other dogs? Etc ...


Jake
Midtown
on Jan 5, 2018 at 5:06 am
Jake, Midtown
on Jan 5, 2018 at 5:06 am

For a dogwalker to make any kind of income... no. There aren't enough hours in the day to go back and forth, shuttling only 3 dogs at a time. It is unfortunate that modern day society has such an obsession with "safety", and the prejudice & lack of knowledge that people have regarding dogs.


Resident
Midtown
on Jan 5, 2018 at 5:09 am
Resident, Midtown
on Jan 5, 2018 at 5:09 am

San Francisco has a very high demand for dogwalking, they brought the limit from 8 down to 6, which still hurts business but its better than 3.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 5, 2018 at 9:15 am
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jan 5, 2018 at 9:15 am

Posted by Jake:

>> For a dogwalker to make any kind of income... no. There aren't enough hours in the day to go back and forth, shuttling only 3 dogs at a time. It is unfortunate that modern day society has such an obsession with "safety", and the prejudice & lack of knowledge that people have regarding dogs.

Posted by Resident, a resident of Midtown:

>> San Francisco has a very high demand for dogwalking, they brought the limit from 8 down to 6, which still hurts business but its better than 3.

Count me prejudiced, then, and obsessed with safety. Oh, and, condescending, too. Whatever.

The expanded dog parks are there for the benefit of Palo Alto residents and their dogs. To benefit the dogs, the owner, (or, sigh, dog-walker), has to be able to control the dogs safely. If the dog parks just become a giant pen where dog-walkers dump 8 dogs, you are going to get -pack behavior-, not "dog socialization" behavior -- the last thing we need is a crowded place where dogs are forced into pack behavior instead of developing social bonds with people (their families? -dream on- or their dog walkers) and other dogs.

The dog parks are not there to allow dog owners who can't spend 60-90 minutes a day with their dog to dump their dogs on (exploited?) commercial dog walkers.

Dog owners: if you can't spend time with your dog, why do you have a dog in the first place?

And, while we are on the subject, in recent years, I've seen incidents where owners of aggressive dog appeared not to own up to injuries caused to other dogs. And, from what I've -heard-, I believe this does happen. I don't have statistical evidence regarding how often this happens, but, I would like see some kind of formal system in place where owners of dogs that injure other dogs end up paying for the damage caused by their aggressive dogs. Anybody know how frequently this is an issue?


Jeffrey
Midtown
on Jan 5, 2018 at 11:08 pm
Jeffrey, Midtown
on Jan 5, 2018 at 11:08 pm

I am an owner of a small and very very very whimpy dog (Brady) that simply doesn’t care if it ever plays with another dog and a second mid-sized dog that is in the middle of mischieve and pretty aggressive play (Koda). I am pretty sure that at Mitchell Park dog park that both my dogs are well known. And I could be a whining complainer that my poor little cockapoo is picked on by the aggressive dogs, but that would make me a hypocrite when I fully support my bull dog rescue dog that is constantly looking for agressive play. I don’t see any previous comments that for me truly see the whole picture, but comments by Sonia and Resident make the most sense. My wife and I purposely walk both our dogs past a dog park 200 yards from our front door to go to Mitchell Park to be there precisely when an excellent dog walking company (Pawfection) is there so that our one agressive dog can play with their dogs and our other dog can learn to play before he dies! This rule is anti small business and anti community and as far as “inclusive” goes from the quote in the article, I can only say that that is a joke. This will kill jobs and hurt dog socialization in Palo Alto. I find all the theoretical commentary and input as simply “unfortunate” (the nicest word I can find). The best, and I mean without comparison, positive influences in the dog park are the dog walkers from Pawfection who keep their dogs in check and also make sure other dogs don’t ruin the environment. I would really like to know if a single member of the committee who voted unanimously voted in this actually in their “inclusive” process ever visited Mitchell park at noon to experience the rich and valuable socialization that is possible simply because a great group of guys who love dogs are there to help our dogs behave better. With this new rule I am not sure I want my dog in a Palo Alto dog park, because my only problems have been with individual dog owners who know nothing about dogs. I can only assume they are the ones motovating this law. I think a simple compromise would be to have a few parks exempt from this law. That way those of us with a 15 pound scared cockapoo can make a decision if we think our dog is better around a few professionals with big aggressive dogs or a few private undisciplined dog owners who think my dog is the problem and never deal with theirs. I for one will go for the free park with professionals.


Resident
Midtown
on Jan 6, 2018 at 3:00 pm
Resident, Midtown
on Jan 6, 2018 at 3:00 pm

Anon -- when you base everything off of fears and conjectures based on the worst-case scenarios, you might as well be insisting that unicorns are real.

Guess what? Pack behavior IS socialization.
Inexperienced observers cannot tell the difference between playing and fighting. Fights are very brief, and very rare. I don't have the time to write a manual about dog language here.
You have a point though -- limited space can be a issue -- and a professional dogwalker should have strong, time-tested bonds with his pack and his watchful, authoritative presence will keep the bullies in check so that they don't gang up on a terrified newcomer who doesn't know how to stand up for himself.
A professional handler, for example, would place his body between the victim and the bully and use treats to redirect and counter-condition. The human must always protect the "weaker" dog.
After the initial "hazing", most dogs overcome their fear and learn to belong with other dogs.
The dog parks are often quiet and deserted. Pawfection, etc. bringing several dogs will only make the place more lively and enriching.
Isn't experience and expertise more valuable than imagination and fear?
This draconian policy is very misled. And so, the fetishization of "safety" continues.


Resident1
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Jan 7, 2018 at 12:19 am
Resident1, Fairmeadow
Registered user
on Jan 7, 2018 at 12:19 am

I agree that the Pawfection guys at Mitchell Park are great, and provide a valuable service for many Palo Alto residents, though not us. Very sad to learn we are making it so difficult for them to continue exercising our dogs.


Don D
Woodside
on Feb 6, 2018 at 5:19 pm
Don D, Woodside
on Feb 6, 2018 at 5:19 pm

I would like to say a few words in support of the dog walkers that I have met at Mitchell Park. I drive from Woodside to this beautiful dog park so that my dog can socialize and get his exercise. After I adopted him I met a couple of the dog walkers there who were very kind and helped me introduce my dog slowly into the pack …They were warm, welcoming and very supportive.
Dog walkers provide a valuable service to those of us who cannot stay at home with our dogs all day long… They are an asset to any dog park-they are trained professionals and a much needed part of any neighborhood.


Anonymous
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 6, 2018 at 5:27 pm
Anonymous, Duveneck/St. Francis
on Feb 6, 2018 at 5:27 pm

On Saturday some people were letting their dogs run off-leash at the Baylands park. Some dog owners or walkers also had not picked up after their dog (in another section). We need enforcement of dog rules at the Baylands.
Please do not leave dog poop on school grounds.
Please do not let your dogs poop on my property and leave it. It’s very gross for us and shoukdn’t be our problem.


Anon2
Greater Miranda
on Feb 7, 2018 at 11:00 am
Anon2, Greater Miranda
on Feb 7, 2018 at 11:00 am

@Anon
" if you can't spend time with your dog, why do you have a dog in the first place?"

Good point. I think the same thing about parents who put their kids in day care, or hire Nanny's. Now let's go build some more houses.


Anon2
Greater Miranda
on Feb 7, 2018 at 11:05 am
Anon2, Greater Miranda
on Feb 7, 2018 at 11:05 am

@Anon
" ...from what I've -heard-, I believe this does happen. I don't have statistical evidence regarding how often this happens, but, I would like see some kind of formal system in place where ..."

IOW: I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't know if its true at all, but I want a formal system created based upon my assumptions and hearsay. Now lets go build some houses.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 7, 2018 at 2:23 pm
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 7, 2018 at 2:23 pm

Posted by Anon2, a resident of Greater Miranda

>> @Anon
" ...from what I've -heard-, I believe this does happen. I don't have statistical evidence regarding how often this happens, but, I would like see some kind of formal system in place where ..."

>> IOW: I don't know what I'm talking about. I don't know if its true at all, but I want a formal system created based upon my assumptions and hearsay. Now lets go build some houses.

So, I take it you have advice for me, yet, don't have any statistical evidence yourself? ;-)

I availed myself of Google. Gee, I wonder why these experts give the advice they do, if pushy, aggressive dogs don't bully and injure other, more vulnerable dogs?

Web Link

Web Link

Web Link

One thing that I learned from these websites and others, is that, besides the obvious problem that dog bullies cause, "dog dorks" are also a big problem:

"Dog dorks Some dogs don’t bully other dogs on purpose, but they lack more refined social skills and just aren’t capable of playing politely. Despite their good intentions, they seem socially clueless. They’re usually high-energy dogs who enjoy play with lively wrestling, hard mouthing and crashing into other dogs like canine bumper cars. When their playmates dislike the rough treatment and try to communicate their desire to quit playing, these dogs don’t seem to understand. They can also hurt or upset people at the dog park if they jump up and mouth on hands, arms or legs. Because rough players can easily spoil the fun for other dogs and their people, they’re not good candidates for dog parks either."

I still didn't find any real statistics, but, at least I know what a "dog dork" is now.


Resident
Midtown
on Feb 8, 2018 at 4:59 am
Resident, Midtown
on Feb 8, 2018 at 4:59 am

Anon, give it up. Don't you love the internet? I can find something on the internet to justify any point of view. Google is everything, and I believe everything I read on the internet.

Still, real-life experience will always be more truthful than written articles and hearsay.


Thank you
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Feb 8, 2018 at 9:18 am
Thank you, Fairmeadow
Registered user
on Feb 8, 2018 at 9:18 am

@Anon, as a long-time dog owner, I find those links well-written and truthful. Thanks for sharing those.


Debate Class
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 8, 2018 at 9:40 am
Debate Class, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 8, 2018 at 9:40 am

"Still, real-life experience will always be more truthful than written articles and hearsay."

Except if you're looking for a trend. If you're looking at a single instance, you're correct, but if you're looking for a trend, anecdotal evidence is very untrustworthy. The "I saw it happen a few times so I know its happening elsewhere" is an irrational argument.


Resident
Midtown
on Feb 8, 2018 at 11:28 am
Resident, Midtown
on Feb 8, 2018 at 11:28 am

I think you missed the point, sir. A person without firsthand experience should not draw conclusions from things they read on the internet. This is how bad policy is made. I think it's healthier to always have an amount of skepticism regarding what you read online. Especially when it comes to Reddit!


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2018 at 12:34 pm
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 8, 2018 at 12:34 pm

Posted by Resident, a resident of Midtown

>> Anon, give it up. Don't you love the internet? I can find something on the internet to justify any point of view. Google is everything, and I believe everything I read on the internet.

Except that the links I posted weren't just anything.

>> Still, real-life experience will always be more truthful than written articles and hearsay.

Did I write anywhere that I didn't have any real-life experience with dogs large and small? I prefer to argue from statistics rather than anecdotes.

Did I state that I have never actually witnessed a fight in which a dog was seriously injured?

Posted by Resident, a resident of Midtown

>> I think you missed the point, sir. A person without firsthand experience should not draw conclusions from things they read on the internet. This is how bad policy is made.

Every dog is different, and, I would advise against extrapolating from a set of known dogs, to making generalizations about all dogs. I would also advise against extrapolating about all dog owners, however tempting it might be sometimes.

-I think statistical data are a much better way to set policy than anecdotes.-

>> I think it's healthier to always have an amount of skepticism regarding what you read online. Especially when it comes to Reddit!

(Including PA Online boards.) Anyway, the fashion nowadays is dog "meet-and-greet". Some experts say dogs should be leashed, others are sure the dogs should not be on a leash. Fenced dog areas give you the opportunity to try either. I'm unconvinced of the benefit of dog "meet-and-greet", but, "whatever". The experts agree that some dogs like to bully (and some dogs are dorks). Owners of dogs that are either bullies or dorks and let them run loose off the lease in a park are {___insert_favorite_word_here___}.


It's quit simple actually
Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 8, 2018 at 1:36 pm
It's quit simple actually, Adobe-Meadow
on Feb 8, 2018 at 1:36 pm

I walk my dog on a leash by choice. I know there are risks in this world so I always carry a combo stun-gun/flashlight. If an unleashed dog runs up on us, I point and zap the stun-gun. This emits a LOUD electric crackling/zapping sound that usually turns the dog away. Only one time did the dog continud fwd, so I at that time, I protected myself and my dog. This is a legal form of self protection and can be used when you have a reasonable fear of harm. An unknown, unleashed dog running at you and/or your dog fits the bill for that.
The dog owner has no legal recourse if they are in an are that does not specifically OK unleashed dogs.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.