Homestead mailing list

[Bill Jones <billj AT harborside.com>]

Here's something amusing from the San Francisco Chronicle:

In San Francisco, where orphaned animals live in "pet condos" at the 
SPCA, pet parents are called guardians instead of owners, and 
well-heeled canines are enrolled in doggie day care, now comes a law 
mandating more creature comforts for the creatures.

The ordinance, expected to be approved by the Board of Supervisors on 
Tuesday, spells out exactly what the city means by providing food, 
shelter and water to San Francisco's estimated 110,000 dogs.

The food: palatable and nutritious. The water: changed at least once a 
day and provided in a non-tipping bowl. The shelter: big enough for the 
canine to stand up and turn around in and with a raised floor and dry, 
clean bedding for when the "ambient temperature falls below that ... to 
which the dog is acclimated."

The law passed its first reading this week with an 8-2 vote, with 
Supervisor Chris Daly absent. Supervisors Michela Alioto-Pier and Aaron 
Peskin dissented.

"I was reading this, and I thought: Now we're treating dogs better than 
we treat the homeless," Alioto-Pier said.

Peskin was unavailable for comment Wednesday.

"It's a classic case of taking an issue we need to deal with and 
overcompensating," Alioto-Pier said. "It's one thing to say you have to 
have clean water for your dog, another to say you have to have it in a 
container that won't tip, or if it does, then you have to bolt it to the 
wall. I think it's too Big Brother."

But Supervisor Bevan Dufty, who sponsored the ordinance at the behest of 
the city's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare, said the law is a 
"commonsense approach."

The ordinance is designed to give teeth to the powers of animal control 
officers. Dufty, who isn't a dog guardian himself, said the officers 
complained that they are powerless to effectively punish people who 
neglect their dogs because the law doesn't define adequate food, water 
or shelter.

Dufty included an amendment to make sure the law won't be used to hassle 
homeless people who keep dogs on the street with them. It exempts 
"persons who, due to financial hardship, are unable to provide shelter 
for themselves."

Dufty said he recognizes that the law may come across as frivolous in a 
city where homeless people routinely bed down in places that would be 
deemed inadequate for dogs.

But, he said, "San Francisco is a city where people are very passionate 
about their animals. I'm fascinated at times that when it comes to 
issues involving dogs and elephants, legions of people will turn out ... 
but it's hard to get people to focus on youth violence.

"I don't view myself at all as being untethered or uninterested in 
day-to- day issues that affect people," he added, noting that at the 
same board meeting where the dog law was considered, he also called for 
an audit of community services in violence-plagued southeastern 
neighborhoods.

Speaking of being tethered, the new law highly discourages it as a means 
of keeping one's pooch in the backyard but outlines one acceptable type 
of apparatus, which includes a "pulley-like system" and non-choke collar 
or "body harness at least 10 feet in length."

The law resulted from a yearlong effort by the animal welfare 
commission, undertaken after the district attorney's office kept 
dropping neglect cases because it could be argued that the animal was 
receiving some kind of food, water and shelter, Dufty said.

"It will make our job a lot easier," said Carl Friedman, director of 
Animal Care and Control, which employs nine animal control officers.

Without the new law, Friedman said, "If we go to a home and a dog is in 
the backyard and they have plywood over some poles, it's not enough to 
arrest them. Without the ability to issue a citation, that really 
hampers us. What good is a roof if the dog is lying down in the mud?"

His department plans to print brochures explaining the law so the 
officers can distribute them on calls of neglect, which number about 
2,000 a year.

"The whole idea is to get the animal to be in a better place, not to 
punish the people," Friedman said.

As for the dogs vs. homeless comparison, Friedman said he doesn't see it 
as an either-or situation.

"Just because we haven't solved the homeless problem doesn't mean we 
have to give up on animal welfare."

Laurie Kennedy, chair of the commission that drafted the ordinance, said 
much of the language was taken from a similar law in Los Angeles.

"In my opinion, it's just basic," said Kennedy, who also coordinates 
volunteers at the SPCA, known for its pet condos.

San Francisco resident Lee Walker, who has two Dobermans she takes to 
Fort Funston, said she supports any law that leads to better treatment 
of dogs.

"If you're not going to step up to the plate and take the responsibility 
of owning a dog, you shouldn't have one," she said. "I can't emphasize 
enough, they need as much care as a child does."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dog days in S.F.

Dogs in San Francisco: About 110,000

Reports of animal neglect per year : About 2,000

Animal control officers: 9

Municipalities with similar laws: City of Los Angeles and counties in 
Louisiana, Texas, Arizona and Arkansas

Plan's requirements: Dog must have full access to an enclosed building 
at all times. Structure must have five sides, including a floor raised 
off the ground free of spots where insects, rodents or parasite eggs 
could lodge. Dog must be able to stand up and turn around freely and 
have access to clean, dry bedding in cold weather.

Water container must be designed to prevent tipping or spilling and must 
be clean, kept out of the sun and changed at least once a day.

Food must be wholesome, palatable and sufficiently nutritious.

Tethering is highly discouraged and is acceptable only if tether is 
attached to a stake in the ground with a pulley-like system and to the 
dog with a non-choke collar or body harness at least 10 feet long.

Penalties: First offense, infraction, fine not to exceed $50. Second 
offense in a 12-month period, infraction, fine not to exceed $100. Third 
and additional offense in 12-month period, misdemeanor, fine not to 
exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment of no more than one year.

Source: Legislation, Animal Care and Control, Supervisor Bevan