Purpose (1)

The purpose of this position paper is to clarify the needs of responsible dog owners for access to public open space, to improve the understanding of the benefits of such access, and to recommend ordinance changes that reflect support for off-leash recreation by responsible dog owners.

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. Dog owners have not been immune to these changes. Increased restrictions are being placed on their use of public open space.

At the same time, the benefits of pet ownership are becoming increasingly evident. Pets are now recognized for their many physical and mental health benefits, especially for children, the elderly, and the handicapped, but also for the many individuals struggling against the fragmentation and isolation of modern society.

To address the tension between stresses on public space and the growing importance of dogs in people’s lives, the field of urban animal management has emerged to ensure that pets are appropriately managed in the urban environment. There now exists a broader and more soundly based body of knowledge on which to make judgements about managing domestic pets and integrating the needs of pet owners into community planning.

That dogs should be allowed access to public open space is a basic premise of this position paper. 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 is clear that the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. Unduly restrictive access policies are inequitable and likely to be counter-productive in managing conflicts and varying demands.

back to top

Dog Ownership

Benefits

The benefits of dog ownership are becoming clearer as scientific attention is increasingly directed towards the human-animal bond. Dogs are now recognized not just for their physical and mental health benefits, but 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 play a 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 benefits of allowing dogs access to public open space are not always self-evident and warrant closer examination. It is important to understand that these benefits apply not only to dogs, but primarily to their owners and to the community as a whole.

The most obvious and compelling reason to provide access to public open space for off-leash recreation is because of public demand. Dog owners are a substantial group of park users: a conservative estimate is that there are almost 37,000 dog owners in the city of Santa Barbara and approximately 25,000 dogs. (3) For the county, these figures are considerably higher, with an estimated 108,000 dogs and 156,000 dog owners. The sheer number of dog owners, and their prevalence as users of park space, requires that municipal parks departments respond by meeting the expressed need.

The second reason has to do with the link between off-leash recreation and promoting acceptable behavior from dogs. Dogs need to be properly socialized to be good "canine citizens" (Canine Behavior, 1965). They also need appropriate exercise 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, other park and street users, and authorities responsible for urban animal management, all of whom are affected by unacceptable behavior from unsocialized and underexercised dogs.

The third reason why dogs need access to public open space is for the positive effects on dog owners. Owning a dog encourages people to exercise, promoting physical and mental health. Taking a dog to a community park has also been found to stimulate social interaction with other people (Journal of Nutrition and the Elderly, 1996). The community-building that takes place in off-leash areas results in more cohesive neighborhoods, more local involvement in municipal affairs, and a heightened sense of connectedness and community for all users.

The final reason, of most benefit to urban managers and animal control departments, is that a balanced approach to accommodating dog owners in public open space results in higher levels of compliance with relevant laws by dog owners. If dog owners perceive laws to be unfair it may elicit a defiant rather than a compliant response from dog owners; if, on the other hand, laws are perceived to be fair, people will be more likely to voluntarily comply. Increased compliance reduces the need for enforcement, freeing municipal staff and resources to be used elsewhere.

back to top

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 incorporate recreational areas exclusively for dogs into their open space planning. Cities like Santa Barbara, with in-fill development only, must look to more creative solutions within the boundaries of existing recreational 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 all who 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 following premises:

• That dog owners are as legitimate as any other user group, and that their needs should be included as an integral part of the city’s decision making process.
• That integrating off-leash recreation with other park uses allows for a more efficient and equitable distribution of resources, whereas separation and restrictions concentrate potential conflicts into isolated areas, increasing the likelihood of overuse.
• 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 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.
• 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.
• That unduly restrictive access policies 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-compliance. If 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.
• 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.

back to top

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 allow 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).

The city of Davis follows 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 controlled by the owner or custodian of such dog." The section includes the following exception: "Dogs are not ‘at large’ when the 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 typically governed by posted regulations such as:

• Dogs shall be under voice control
• Owners or custodians shall carry a leash
• Aggressive dogs are not allowed and/or must be leashed
• Dogs shall not dig or disturb park resources
• Feces shall be immediately removed.

Other cities take a more comprehensive approach by way of ordinance. Although the actual designation of those parks which shall 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 well 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;
• All dogs must be under voice control;
• Dogs which are sick, in heat, or aggressive are not permitted;
• Persons in charge of the dog shall quiet them if they bark;
• Persons in charge of the dog shall "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 t-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.

back to top

The Santa Barbara Community

Santa Barbara, with its moderate climate and exceptional natural beauty, is a natural draw for those who love outdoor recreation; for those who own dogs, it is ideal. Beyond this, the citizens of Santa Barbara are committed to the humane treatment of animals, dogs and cats especially, in a way that is rivaled by few other communities. The City/County Animal Shelter is a virtual "no-kill" facility and a model for other shelters around the country. In addition, money generated by dozens of veterinary facilities, grooming shops, pet supply houses, grocery stores, boarding facilities, and obedience schools is in the millions, contributing substantially to the local economy.

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.

• Dogs are a danger to people using the park. Dog attacks are the most serious potential problem, and the most susceptible to misinformation and misunderstanding. Though attacks can occur against humans, other dogs, and other animals, most dogs do not bite people or other dogs (Domestic Dog, 1995; Canine Behavior, 1965). In the overwhelming majority of cases, dog attacks occur in the dog owner’s home or immediate vicinity—not 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 Journal of the American Medical Association (January 22, 1997), the vast majority of dog bites occur on a dog’s territory, typically 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. Although concerns about dog attacks are legitimate, the extent to which the mass media amplify isolated problems needs to be considered. Failure to do so results in simplistic management mechanisms that neither protect against genuine risks nor meet the needs of responsible dog owners with safe dogs.
• Dog feces 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 has been highly successful in educating owners not to allow their dogs to defecate on public property without picking-up afterward, and we continue in these efforts. Further, Dog PAC supports ordinances that would apply onerous fines to violators of nuisance ordinances.
• Free-running dogs will interfere with those using the parks for other recreational activities. Children’s playground areas must remain dog free. Picnic areas must remain "dogs on leash only." Dog PAC supports additional signage 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. Studies such as "Public Open Space and Dogs: A Design and Management Guide For Open Space Professionals and Local Government," (online at http://www.petnet.com.au/openspace/frontis.html) make clear the possibilities for integrating off-leash areas with wildlife management.
• Some off-leash areas are a safety hazard for 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. But dog safety is ultimately the dog owner’s responsibility.
• The City of Santa Barbara may be liable for negative incidents involving dogs. The City is legitimately concerned that legalizing the use of public property for off-leash recreation creates the risk of public liability. The experience of other municipalities indicates, however, that the risk is minimal. For example, the Point Isabel Regional Shoreline is a 21 acre off-leash park located at the border of the cities of Berkeley and Richmond, California. According to its park supervisor, the area averages 730,000 dog visitors each year. The attorney 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 attorney for the agency.
  
  Laguna Beach has had off-leash areas for several years with no claims. The Sepulveda Dam Basin, which is the largest off-leash area in Los Angeles, also reports no claims or litigation over dog incidents
  
  At least one reason for the lack of claims is legal: the "dangerous condition" immunity from public liability generally relieves the public agency of liability, especially for the acts of third parties using the public property (Gov’t. Code section 830 et. seq.; Jones v. Czapkay (1960) 182 Cal.App.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:

1. Express assignment of liability and indemnification by users of 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 11.02.125(E).)
   
2. Signage: 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 of liability and hold harmless agreement.
3. Insurance: Purchase a commercial insurance policy specifically protecting the City from dog-related claims.

Go to PART II

back to top