Fetch the Paper: Digital Dog Edition

Last Day to Comment on GGNRA Beach Closures

SF Dog President Sally Stephens sent us this reminder for dog owners to comment on the GGNRA proposed closures of Crissy Field and Ocean Beach (to protect the Western Snowy Plover). If you have not commented on this very important issue, we urge you to do so now. Here's Sally's letter:

Today, Monday, Jan 21 is the final day to submit public comment on the GGNRA's proposed closure of parts of Ocean Beach and Crissy Field to off-leash dog walking because of the presence of Western Snowy Plover birds. It's important that people set aside their cynicism and comment even if it's just to say "I oppose the closure. There is no scientific evidence that off-leash dogs are deterimental to the plover population at Ocean Beach or Crissy field."

It's too late to mail a comment in, but you can comment online at:

http://tinyurl.com/299re6

For more detailed talking points, you can go to: http://sfdog.org/news/news.htm

Dog Advocates Deserve Better

How many animal advocates that you know, have been arrested and convicted for their work? Tammy Grimes of Dogs Deserve Better was just pronounced guilty earlier today for her "crime" of rescuing a chained, distressed dog from its prison.

I wanted you to hear it from me before you heard it from anyone else. Today at 5:00 p.m. EST I was convicted of theft and receiving stolen property in a Blair County, PA courtroom.

I'm sure I will have much more to say about this at a future date. For now I need a day or two to mourn and then begin to pick up my pieces and move on.

Please realize this is just a bump in my road, and I will not stop working for chained and penned dogs. I hope those of you who are on this list as supporters will stay with me...but I need you still believe in me and the work I've done to free dogs from lives of hell on the end of chains. To still believe in us and the differences we are beginning to make in the lives of chained dogs.

If you are not familiar with this issue, or if you would like to extend support to Tammy for her earnest and brave actions on behalf of chained dogs, please visit her site.  Be aware though, some of the photos there will break your heart.

DDB is asking for holiday donations and support of (formerly chained) rescued dogs, as well. I don't often post solicitations here, but I make an exception for DDB.

Vote for the Dog Park!

Don't wait on this one.... Marin IJ has an online poll today asking if the Field of Dogs dog park should be replaced by an office building. Chime in.

Protecting Pets from Domestic Violence

Recently California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 353 into law. When a victim of domestic violence decides to leave their abuser and applies for a restraining order, the order can include the household pets. Because many domestic abuse shelters do not accept pets, this provides some legal safety for the pets who are left behind. The bill was submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee by Senator Sheila Keuhl, D-CA.

In the past, some judges would include pets in the restraining orders, while others could chose to consider the pets part of the property settlement, and therefore not protected.
There is a high correlation between domestic violence and animal abuse, according to research presented to support passage of the bill. 25% to 40% of women will not leave a domestic violence situation if it means leaving their pets behind. And more than 70% of women in shelters report that the animals in their home have also been abused by their perpetrator.

According to the University of San Diego School of Law, studies have shown that very few people are more attached to their pets than victims of domestic violence. Psychologists speculate that it’s important for victims to feel compassion and love for a creature who poses no threat, unlike their human relationship. Others believe pets offer abuse victims some means of control over their lives. Regardless of the reason for the attachment, abusers often prey upon this attachment as a means of control.

FETCH readers might like to know that several local agencies offer special programs to help protect pets in domestic violence situations. Marin Humane’s Companions in Crisis program offers confidential sheltering of pets. You can reach the program at 415-883-4621 24 hours a day. In San Francisco, ACC’s Safe Pets Program provides shelter and care for vulnerable pets in violent homes; contact Judy Choy at 415-554-9401 or e-mail judy.choy@sfgov.org.

Dogs Deserve Better

We recently received a press release from Dogs Deserve Better, an group that advocates against the chaining of dogs. DDB's founder, Tammy Grimes, was arrested and jailed last year for releasing a dying, chained dog. Her act is considered to be criminal by authorities who deem property rights superior to the right for dogs to not be inhumanely treated.

The press release is a reminder that winter weather is difficult for chained dogs, especially in the very cold climates. While we here in northern CA rarely have that kind of weather, it's a good reminder to make sure that if your dogs are outdoors for any extended period of time, that they have appropriate shelter in addition to food and water.

DDB also has a line of gift cards and a 2008 calendar for sale on its web site. Please go and learn more about this wonderful advocacy group and about why dogs should never be chained.

Support for CA Farm Animals

An historic ballot initiative campaign has just kicked off to help animals in California factory farms.  Californians for Humane Farms needs to gather 650,000 signatures by February 28, 2008, to qualify for the November 2008 ballot.  The initiative would require that animals in factory farms have room to turn around to extend their wings and limbs.  We need help spreading the word and inspiring volunteers in Marin, Sonoma and San Francisco to help gather signatures immediately.  The Marin Humane Society, SF/SPCA, Peninsula Humane Society and others are all playing a very active role to ensure success for this campaign. 
For more information about the campaign please see the official web site at   www.humanecalifornia.org.
The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act would prohibit the use of veal crates for calves, battery cages for egg-laying hens, and gestation crates for breeding pigs. All of these confinement systems are so severe that the animals can barely move for months on end.
Across the country, restaurants, producers, schools and retailers—including Burger King, Carl’s Jr., Hardee’s, Wolfgang Puck, Smithfield Foods, San Francisco State University and University of California-Berkeley—are moving away from crates and cages on factory farms, and switching to housing where the animals have more freedom of movement and socialization.
The group is asking for supporters to not only sign, but help circulate the petitions. To meet the goal, 34,000 petitions must be signed per week between now and deadline.
According to CHF, the signatures must be collected the old-fashioned way—person to person—using an official petition form. If you’d like to circulate petitions, send CHF an email at director@humanecalifornia.org or log on to HumaneCalifornia.org. All volunteers who collect 1,000 signatures or more will receive a three-year gift subscription to VegNews magazine.

Finders Keepers

The whole Ellen vs. Mutts & Moms story is making headlines as this issue of FETCH goes to press. Regardless your opinion about this particular episode, let’s talk for a minute about the big picture. And that picture is about who “owns” an animal, and whether animals are property or family members.
First, one of the items recently in the news is the California law that will allow family pets to be included in restraining orders for domestic violence cases. Now for many of us, that’s a no-brainer. But the reason we need a law, you see, is because traditionally pets are considered part of the property settlement in a divorce case. One could look at it that way, I suppose; pets are often purchased. But to regard them as simply property means that their best interests are not relevant; the judge will give more weight to other factors when the pet cat is an asset to be assigned.
But here’s the rub. If I adopt a pet and sign some agreement that makes me that animal’s guardian and limits my rights to “possess” the animal, then I may be vulnerable to the animal’s being taken back, as Iggy was in the Ellen case. Depending on what I sign, the group that granted me the custodial “guardianship” of the pet can, at its whim, revoke that guardianship and reclaim possession of the pet.
So who “owns” a companion animal? If a rescue group has harbored it, then adopts it out, how long do they retain any kind of oversight? Forever? What is reasonable for any outside group to decide about your relationship to your companion, as long as you are not abusive or breaking any laws?
Having two rescue dogs myself, I like knowing that if it ever becomes necessary I can return them to the shelter or rescue group from which I adopted them. But that’s an option I would only consider if I had no other viable options for placing them with people I know and trust. (Heck, I have friends who would line up to take Bennie!) But I am not comfortable thinking that some shred of “ownership” or legal obligation would keep me from making my own choice. Once I have assumed full responsbility for the animal, shouldn’t I make the determination what’s in her best interest?
What do you think? Let us know.

Off Leash Proponents: Last GGNRA Committee Meeting

SF Dog just sent this; please make sure you attend or send your comments as instructed.

FINAL MEETING OF GGNRA NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING COMMITTEE

Saturday, October 27, 2007
9 am to 3 pm
Building 201, Upper Fort Mason
San Francisco


Beginning in March 2006, a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee has been meeting to see if any consensus could be reached about a Dog Management Policy for the Golden Gate National Recreational Area. The Committee is composed of representatives from a variety of dog groups (including SFDOG), local environmental groups, equestrians, the SF/SPCA, and other "stakeholders". The October 27 meeting is the final scheduled meeting of the Committee.

The GGNRA has restricted the sites that the Committee can consider for off-leash recreation to 12:

1. Ocean Beach (north of Stairwell 21 and south of Sloat Blvd, excluding the Snowy Plover area
2. Baker Beach
3. Lands End Trail
4. Crissy Field (excluding fenced tidal marsh and dune areas, and the Wildlife Protection Area on west beach)
5. Upper Fort Mason Great Meadow and Parade Ground
6. Muir Beach (excluding tidal lagoon, Redwood Creek, wetland and dune habitat areas)
7. Rodeo Beach (excluding Rodea Lagoon, and fenced habitat protection area)
8. Homestead Valley
9. Fort Funston (excluding fenced and/or signed areas closed for protection of endangered species, habitat restoration, erosion control and public safety)
10. Oakwood Valley trails (Marin)
11. Cattle Hill (San Mateo)
12. San Pedro Point (San Mateo)

Eight areas are under consideration for on-leash only access:

1. Mori Point Trails (San Mateo)
2. Sweeney Ridge trails, excluding the Notch trail (San Mateo)
3. Milagra Ridge trails
4. Ocean Beach Snowy Plover Management area between Stairwell 21 and Sloat Blvd
5. Sutro Heights Park
6. Alta Avenue trail (Marin)
7. Fort Baker (excluding fishing pier and Chapel Trail)
8. Other areas with threatened or endangered species (if potential adverse impacts can be mitigated)

This meeting will be the first time that the Committee will discuss the specific sites under consideration and where dogs can be off-leash at each site.

If you care about off-leash recreation in the GGNRA, you should try to attend this meeting.

There will be a period for public comment at the end of the meeting. This is your chance to let the GGNRA and the Committee know that you support off-leash access in the GGNRA. Let them know which of the sites under consideration you use and how many years you've been using them. Let them know that there are few problems with off-leash dogs at the sites you frequent. Support continued off-leash access at these and other sites.

Unfortunately, at the urging of representatives of some of the environmental groups, the Committee voted in one of its first meetings to limit the total length of public comment to 20 minutes. Bring a written copy of what you want to say and give it to GGNRA staff and tell them you want it included in the public record as your public comment. You can also write a comment down on forms available at the meeting. You can submit written public comment if you are denied the chance to speak because of the time limit.

If you cannot attend the meeting, you can submit the public comment you would have said at the meeting to:

Public Comment for 10/27/07 NR Committee Meeting
c/o Chris Powell
Golden Gate National Recreational Area
Building 201
Fort Mason
San Francisco, CA 94123

Be sure to indicate you are submitting public comment for the meeting, and that you want your comment to be included in the public record for the Committee meeting.

Sally Stephens
Chair, SFDOG

Please feel free to post this notice to other pro-off-leash listserves and websites.

Which Pit Will Be on the Cover of FETCH?

Wow! Pit bull lovers from all over the Bay Area sent us essays and photos for the September FETCH the Paper cover contest. One of these lucky pups will be featured. Check out the great photos!

The judges are judging and the FETCH team has pulled together some great prizes for the winner and runners up, too.

Taking the Rap

I was just talking about the Michael Vick issue at lunch, then came back in to find an email from Mary Ellen at MaSnax, pointing me to a blog post from Donna at Bad Rap on this topic. Donna's post is excellent, a must-read opinion on why these abused dogs will likely still take the "bad rap" for Vick. And some fascinating history on the origins of the prejudice of pit bulls. Read on...