A recent opinion piece in the Toronto Star (July 11, 2007 - As outdoor living rooms, parks must be safe for all) penned by anti-dog association Play at the Park, has elicited responses from several members of the Toronto community. Below is a selection of responses submitted to the Toronto Star editorial department:

Plenty of Room for Dogs in Parks

I read with dismay the letter from Premika Ratnam in Thursday’s Toronto Star (As outdoor living rooms, parks must be safe for all, July 12). As founder of the All Canadian Pet Services Network – a professional organization for pet sitters and dog walkers in Canada – I was also in attendance for the deputations to the Parks and Environment Committee on July 4, 2007.

The gross generalizations made by Ms. Ratnam are not reflective of the actual statistics regarding dog bite safety, and can be considered fear mongering to benefit the position of anti-dog activists. The Dog Legislation Council of Canada summarizes that 64.5 percent of all dog bites occur within the home, not in off-leash parks as alleged. In addition, while the presence of any animal faeces is a deterrent to enjoyment of parks and outdoor areas, it is important to recognize that the transmission of infectious agents is lower through dog faeces than it is through bird faeces – which can transmit toxoplasmosis, cryptococcosis and avian influenza A. Responsible dog owners stoop and scoop after their dogs and encourage others to do so, keeping parks free of faeces and litter. The presence of dogs in parks also discourages congregations of large flocks of birds, limiting the waste left behind. Evidence is also available to indicate that dogs in parks also discourage the congregation of youth gangs, loiterers, drug dealers and vandals – all of who have a significant impact on the cleanliness and damage caused to our parks. Dogs in parks run and play and have fun – they don’t generally dig holes and damage equipment as Ms. Ratnam would have you believe.

Ms. Ratnam insinuates that public education is necessary only because of the presence of dogs in parks, and that eliminating the dogs eliminates the need for education – a position that is tantamount to censoring media in order to protect one child from viewing potentially disturbing images. The result is a lack of responsibility on the part of the parent or child, and a placement of blame on those to who this responsibility is displaced.

It is disheartening that the issue of dog in parks has been redefined as an issue that argues the rights of dogs versus the rights of children and seniors, who are perceived to be at high risk due to the presence of dogs in the city of Toronto. The issue is actually about the rights of people who choose to have dogs as their companions versus the rights of those who dislike dogs in public spaces. Dog owners are taxpayers, and are as deserving of appropriate public spaces in which to play and walk as are other taxpayers. With privilege comes responsibility, and the statements made about dog owners refusals to comply with city of Toronto bylaws are not reflective of the discussions that occurred at the deputation.

Ms. Ratnam further identifies that professional dog walkers should be held to the standards of hot dog vendors – a comparison that is no way valid. Professional dog walkers provide a service to the taxpaying dog owners in this city, and the services vary greatly among different companies in this city. Hot Dog Vendors are supplying a product that, without proper standards and control, can produce a health and safety hazard to the general public. In addition, Ms. Ratnam has made many inaccurate statements regarding income levels for professional dog walkers – figures that are not widely available, and also vary greatly within the industry. Ms. Ratnam’s attestation that dog walkers are making $15 per hour per dog fails to account for the facts that one hour billed to clients is essentially 2 hours of work (transportation, feeding and cleaning time after the one hour walk), and the business overhead expenses. Dog walkers are not making $45 per hour – as Ms. Ratnam insinuates – in the same way that other employees earn an hourly rate. Insurance, licensing fees, advertising expenses, communication expenses are all deducted from the billed rates, reflecting figures far different than Ms. Ratnam alleges.

There are an estimated 250,000 dogs in the city of Toronto. Information about the health and psychosocial benefits of dog ownership are widely available from reputable sources, and indicate that dog owners have lower blood pressure, lower medical expenses, and homes with dogs are linked to higher self-esteem in young children and greater cognitive development. If Ms. Ratnam is concerned that the childhood obesity epidemic is affecting the life-span of children, perhaps it would be prudent that she recommend more children have a dog in the family to increase their activity and social skills? Otherwise, there is no responsible reason why she would draw comparisons between these 2 separate issues.

Lara Willis, All Canadian Pet Services Network

Am I the only person who finds it quite ludicrous that Premika Ratnam thinks that dog owners and their dogs are somehow responsible for the child obesity epidemic and will prevent these children from ever being healthy? Personal responsibility applies to everyone. And, by the way, dogs also poop when they are on leash, so to keep the grass "free from remnants of dog excrement" implies that dogs should not be allowed to set foot in parks at all.

Amy Seabrook, Toronto

Re: “As outdoor living rooms, parks must be safe for all” July 12, 2007

Everyone opposed to the proposed off-leash policy seems to be ignoring or skirting around the fact that developing a policy is meant to start forward momentum in creating designated space to direct dog owners to for off-leash recreation, and move them out of the areas that are considered unsafe or inappropriate. Dogs and their owners are not going to materialize out of thin air and invade our parks with the implementation of an off-leash policy. They are there already, living next door or down the block. A policy will help channel these owners and their dogs into newly designated areas, increase signage directing them there, and proposes to increase enforcement for licensing and owners who continue to be inattentive. We need all need to share, and respect the needs of others. Isn’t this what most park users want? No one seems to be 100% happy with the policy, but it is a start, and should be approved as amended, in the hopes that the remaining kinks will be worked out as the process unfolds.

Ms Ratnam makes some rather alarmist statements when it comes to health issues relating to off-leash dogs in parks. According to Canada Safety Council statistics, 71.2% of dog bite victims knew the dog that bit them and bites occurred more often in the summer, during the evening between 4:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., and more often at a home than in a public place. Most of the dogs I see in children’s playgrounds are accompanied by a stroller. The fact is that leashed dogs poop and pee just as frequently as unleashed ones, and an appropriate schedule of immunization and deworming makes residual dog fecal matter much less of a health hazard than that of urban wildlife. I once became extremely ill and incapacitated for three weeks – it was determined that I had contracted Psittacosis from an injured pigeon that I had moved to a safer location (soft-hearted fool that I am), even though I had wrapped the poor bird in newspaper and avoided direct contact. What is Ms Ratnam proposing to do to combat the health risks in parks and playgrounds from urine and fecal matter of rats, bats, mice, raccoons, skunks, opossums, pigeons, gulls and Canada geese, once she succeeds in getting rid of the dogs?

Ms. Ratnam is misstating some facts. She stated that at the Committee deputations, not one dog owner agreed that people should volunteer their personal information to a bylaw officer, even if they were violators. The fact is that only one deputant was ever asked that question, and that deputant was me. Maybe I could have handled it better, but I am not an accomplished public speaker and I was nervous and caught off guard. As set out on the website and in our literature, Toronto Unleashed promotes responsible dog ownership, and that certainly includes picking up your poop. I'm sure that every dog owner at that committee meeting would support that position. Anyone who has been around of one of my high decibel “EXCUSE ME – DO YOU NEED A BAG? YOUR DOG HAD A DUMP!” encounters, knows that it is behaviour I do not tolerate from anyone. I also encourage dog owners to pick up any uncollected poop that they might come across, rather than risk it causing one more person to add their voice to the anti-dog sentiment. But that's not what I was addressing in my deputation, and challenged Ms Fletcher that her belligerence was an attempt to direct attention away from a question that maybe she did not have an answer for, which was why there did not appear to be any budget allocation for training staff acquiring Special Constable status. No Powers of Arrest training, no Use of Force training, no Conflict Resolution training? As it stands right now, a lawyer can tell you that even if you are caught violating a municipal bylaw, you are not obligated to volunteer personal information to a Bylaw Enforcement Officer who does not have the powers to enforce identification. Ethics aside, that is a loophole in the law. That is why they often take pictures, or arrange to be accompanied by Police Officers when identification is required to lay a charge for any bylaw infraction, be it illegal street vendors, dumping, or irresponsible dog owners. It is cumbersome, I agree, and gives violators an opportunity to exhibit further bad behaviour. So they want to appoint their bylaw officers Special Constables with limited or broader powers of arrest. if it’s fine with the Police Services Board and Chief Blair, it’s fine with me. Just make sure that they conduct themselves appropriately and have the full training that goes with the responsibility.

As for Ms. Ratnam's remarks on child obesity, she hasn't yet found a way to blame dog owners for Global Warming or AIDS. But if we can manage to sit down together, be reasonable, and find a way to include people with off-leash dogs in parks, we may have a real shot at World Peace.

Luan Egan, Toronto Unleashed

RE: Compromise on Canines
and July 12, 2007 article by Premika Ratnam

The Star usually demonstrates balanced reporting on city issues so I was shocked to see the July 12 article by the leader opposing off-leash parks without an alternate perspective.

This one-sided article seeks to rouse the public with half truths. Not one source quoted any injuries due to off-leash parks. The Canadian Institute of Child Health, Safe Kids Canada, and Safe Start Fact Sheet 2001 [states]: Nearly half of the dog bites seen in emergency departments happened with the family pet in the child’s own home. According to the City’s website, Health Canada also reinforces this claim suggesting that bites occur more often at a home than in a public place.

Ms. Ratnam’s claim that the process is dominated by a small segment of dog owners is untrue. Over 75% of the public meeting attendees were dog owners. Her claim that this group wants more privileges and fewer responsibilities is untrue and inflammatory. During the deputation, no dog owner was asked whether they should volunteer personal information if they were violators. Again, misrepresentation to incite the public.

Last Thursday, Canadian Press reported a six-year-old girl sat over an open drain hole in a wading pool and had part of her intestinal tract torn out by the drain's powerful suction. Should we over react and rip up every wading pool now? Of course not.
Claiming children lead shorter lives due to lack of exercise is also inaccurate ignoring other factors like diet, environment, etc. Off-leash times can be accommodated to ensure children, dogs, parents and owners can exercise safely.
Tonight, someone drove by my park and yelled, “parks are for kids”. There’s a fenced off-leash area separate from the playground—which was empty. This verbal abuse is not acceptable and is directly related to the misleading information being peddled as fact.

Tracy Chong

Debunking the misconceptions: A detailed analysis of Premika Ratnam's statements

According to the city's "Safety with Dogs" website, children should be taught, "walk, not run, past dogs that are not tied up or fenced in." Perversely, it also advises children encountering an off-leash dog: "Slowly move back to the point where the dog does not feel threatened."

Is the city expecting that the public protect itself from a poorly designed policy? This is unacceptable in a society confronted with an epidemic of childhood obesity.

Teaching children and adults to safely and appropriately approach and handle dogs is not irresponsible or unacceptable. How many children have you seen running up to a leashed dog? The child may be enthusiastic or curious, but this small laughing or squealing child can be seen as a threat by a dog, particularly one who has not been exposed to children. Why is it that we, as adults, use our common sense not to approach complete strangers with outstretched arms at a fast pace? In most cities, this would be perceived as threatening behaviour, and in Toronto you'd likely be hit for it.

According to a study conducted by the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program, 64.5% of dog bites occur in the home - more than half of those within the home of the victim. In 71.2 % of the incidents, the dog was known to the victim. Dog Bite Prevention education is necessary not only when dealing with unknown dogs, but also when dealing with family pets. Taking responsibility for providing this education should be the role of the parent. Children are taught to walk instead of run - running results in falls and scraped knees and broken bones. Is it the solution to remove all gravel from roadways, and line all sidewalks with foam rubber as well?

Jan Kasperski, CEO of the Ontario College of Family Physicians, states: "Children, teens and adults have the right to congregate for recreational purposes free from any potential threat from off-leash dogs."

The actual quote from Jan Kasperski, located in a letter to Play at the Park in February 2007 (prior to the release of the City of Toronto's Policy proposal" states:

"Adequate enforcement mechanisms to ensure that dogs are properly licensed and vaccinated. These mechanisms must also work to reduce, if not eliminate, the chances of dogs running freely Off-Leash in playgrounds and parks where children, teens and adults have the right to congregate for recreational purposes free from any potential threat from Off Leash dogs."

By using only an excerpt of the quote, Ms. Ratnam has insinuated that off-leash dogs are a threat in any circumstance, including designated off-leash areas. The quote, in it's original context, implies that off-leash areas in playgrounds is not reasonable - an issue which the City of Toronto has addressed in the policy. There is no clear response to safety issues in an off-leash area. Furthermore, Jan Kasperski indicates that a "significant number of emergency room visits precepitated (sic) by children being attacked or assaulted by dogs many of which are off leash". In fact, in 1996, dog bites and dog attacks represented 1.0% of all injuries in the CHIRPP database. Again, 64.5% were in a home, and only 3.1% of the total injuries were identified as occurring in a public park.

Dr. Denis Daneman, chief of pediatrics at the Hospital for Sick Children, concurs, and they together ask that off-leash areas be enclosed and located in large parks, and alternatively in areas where there is minimum opportunity for conflict.

In fact, Dr. Daneman issued his letter to Play at the Park on January 8, 2007 - several weeks before Jan Kasperski. While Dr. Daneman indicates that "we also understand the important roles pets play in the lives of children and adults alike", he fails to quantify his claim that "an important number of these emergency room visits are precipitated by children being attacked or assaulted by dogs many of whom are off-leash". While Dr. Daneman's may be spelled correctly, it was re-iterated word for word in Jan Kasperski's letter, which again does not quantify the allegations with actual statistics and is in stark contrast to the published statistics available.

In agreement are the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, the Canadian Physicians for the Environment, Power Soccer and Doggone Safe.

The letters of agreement continue to allege that fear and safety are the primary concerns, and are speculative, personal opinions responding to information that has been fed to the writers. These are apparently not the official positions of the associations involved, and no support can be established outside of personal letters by the writers.

Animal experts are even more strident about safety. The American and Canadian Kennel clubs recommend 6-foot-high fences for unleased (sic) dogs.

The American Kennel Club, in their public education documents, stress the need for fences for the protection of dogs and people around the dog's own yard. Nowhere on the web site for either organization is there any information regarding this alleged recommendation, nor has Ms. Ratnam clarified that the existing recommendations are for unsupervised dogs permitted off-leash in their own yard.

World-renowned dog expert Stanley Coren points out that a dog does not recognize an arbitrary designated area in a park. As pack animals, they should not be loose in public parks.

When contacted by a member of the Toronto Area Dogwalkers Alliance, Mr. Coren's response was as follows:

I have no idea why that article cites me. I certainly have never said in
any interview or in anything that I have written "As pack animals they
should not be loose in public parks." I fought for many years to have
leash-free arrangements in Vancouver parks so what this article ascribes
to me runs completely contrary to my beliefs. I also have no record of
ever having spoken to the reporter Premika Ratnam. I have written to
them to ask that they publish a correction of this.

Sincerely

Prof. Stanley Coren, Ph.D., F.R.S.C.
Department of Psychology

Michael O' Sullivan, Humane Society of Canada chair, says that 80 per cent of dogs are untrained, and wants mandatory training and neutering.

Mr. O'Sullivan's recommendations regarding training and neutering do have merit, though his focus is the prevention of dog bites. The onus of dog bite prevention should fall on both the dogs AND the public - as instinctual creatures, dogs will react in an instinctual manner. Even a trained, obedient dog has the potential to bite when faced with a threat - just as human's have an instinct to fight or flee for our own protection (a response created by the adrenaline produced during times of high stress or fear). Mr. O'Sullivan has also stated that "every 60 seconds someone is bitten by a dog", a number that is not supported by previously cited statistics. In fact, if someone is bitten every 60 seconds, that's nearly 1500 bites per day and over 500,000 bites per year!

The dog walker policy is also surprising. While hot dog vendors are expected to pay more than $3,000 in fees to operate, dog walkers, whose dogs will be digging up holes over vast tracts of land, will have to pay a mere $200. Allowing six dogs per dog walker unleashed in open parks is plain insane.

Imagine being caught between two sets of six dogs coming toward one another from opposite ends of the sidewalk, even leashed.

At $15 per hour per dog, dog walkers are doing pretty well with a three-dog limit under the current bylaw, which has been suspended for a year.

As has been evidenced by many dog owners and dog walkers, the damage caused to parks is largely due to children, teenagers, vandals and litterers. Dogs in parks do not dig holes - they run and play and socialize. A dog that digs a hole is typically one who is left alone and board in a back-yard. Again, Ms. Ratnam does not support her position with facts or evidence. Edit: While we will concede that there are instances of dogs digging, this is the exception rather than the norm, and is not as widespread as opponents would have you believe.

The comparison to hot dog vendors in Toronto is also unrealistic. Hot dog vendors pay a permit to operate in a single location - rent on a particular space of sidewalk. Hot dog vendors must adhere to strict regulations regarding food handling, or risk poisoning several hundred people per day. A dog walker walking six dogs for one hour also spends another hour, on average, of unbilled time for transportation, cleaning and feeding at a minimum. A dog walker in Toronto earns an average of $25,000 per year (based on a survey of ACPSN members) before expenses, not nearly the $40,000 per year Ms. Ratnam alleges. Dog walkers are providing a service, not a retail product, and are subject to a complete loss of income in the case of injury or illness. The current proposed fee of $200 is going to be a detriment to the small business owner more so than the larger companies. An unrealistic fee that Ms. Ratnam proposes would ensure that many dog walkers close their business, and the remaining companies monopolize the industry. The pet parents suffer then, and more dogs would be less socialized and more of a nuisance to Ms. Ratnam.

Furthermore, Ms. Ratnam alleges that the six dog limit is "insane". Dog trainers, handlers, walkers and even simply dog owners have very little trouble handling six dogs (or five dogs, as the current limitations state). In fact, Sandy Straw (manager, Parks and Environment Committee) herself was invited to handle six dogs, and did so with no difficulty. There is a precedent for the six dog limit in San Francisco and Vancouver, and has been the standard for professional associations in Canada since 1997. Once again, Ms. Ratnam allows her personal bias to overshadow facts, and manufactures her own figures to fit her opinion.

The process has been dominated by a small segment of dog owners and walkers who want more privileges and fewer responsibilities.

One could also argue that the number of dog owners and walkers most affected by this policy and most interested in the outcome outweighs the number of non-dog owners who actually care about the policy or the use of the parks. If the representation is, say, 4 to 1 in favor of the dog walker/owner, then it is a reflection of the society as a whole. Dog owners and walkers are not arguing for fewer responsibilities - we already take on much responsibility in the parks which we use - bags for cleanup are readily supplied, group clean-up efforts to rid the parks of litter, dirty needles (which one dog walker was recently stuck by), broken beer bottles, used condoms and more. There is more excrement from geese and birds at these parks than there are dogs who use the park.

At the deputation, not one dog owner agreed that people should volunteer their personal information to a bylaw officer even if they were violators. Last year, not a single dog owner was charged with a poop and scoop violation. Adding 10 more bylaw enforcement officers 18 months later is not going to meet the increased demand.

Dog owners at the deputation emphasized that, in the absence of any special constable status of the bylaw officers, they had a legal right to refuse to do so. Only one individual was asked this question, and her answer was just that. No other dog owners or dog walkers were asked, and as such, none refused.

In addition, any violation must be witnessed by the bylaw officer in order for a charge to be laid. The lack of bylaw officers is not indicative of the lack of charges. I can count on one hand how many times a bicyclist has been stopped for running a red light, travelling the wrong way down a one way street, or failing to yield to a pedestrian. Yet these are occurrences that I deal with every day on the streets of Toronto.

Who is going to address the issue that a quarter of children will be leading shorter lives than their parents due to lack of exercise, according to a parliamentary study?

Politicians and advocates for the environment, child and human rights, seniors and the disabled need to broaden their mandates to recognize that safe parks are not a perk, but vital to our well-being.

The National Institutes of Health attribute the "Childhood Obesity Epidemic" to "eating too much and moving around too little. Almost half of children aged 8-16 years watch three to five hours of television a day. Kids who watch the most hours of television have the highest incidence of obesity." The Mayo Clinic recommends, as a deterrent to obesity, including children in household chores such as walking the dog. Not one medical establishment cites the fear of dog bites as a deterrent to children playing in a park. In fact, the issues most often blamed are technological advances such as the home computer and video games, which stimulate a child's need for socializing in the absence of any physical activity. The connection between childhood obesity and the fear of dogs exists only in Ms. Ratnam's mind. We can clear all of the dogs out of every park, and it is STILL up to the parent to get the child to play there.

Ms. Ratnam does a disservice to the people she is representing if she allows these statements to be used to further her position. As she has demonstrated, she lacks the responsibility to ensure her statements are accurate and contextual, and it is disheartening.

It is important for City Council to vote on the issues surrounding these policies based upon factual evidence and statistics, and not pander to the fear-mongering and misinformation that is being fed by Ms. Ratnam in her affiliation with Play At The Park. Repeating a myth or a misstatement of fact doesn't make it true. A common ground needs to be found with these policies, though Ms. Ratnam is apparently non-amiable to the idea of compromise.

For further information, contact Lara Willis of the ACPSN at lara.willis@acpsn.com or 647 405-7387.