Dog leash ruling draws mixed review

I just read the Sept. 5 article regarding the proper leashing of

dogs at the beach and couldn’t agree more with the judges’ ruling

(“Newport can tighten leash”).

I’m a runner and I often encounter the somewhat myopic view by

some dog owners that the leash law applies only to busy streets and

neighborhood parks. I often run different routes around the Back Bay

area, especially the north side with the horse trails. I’ve

occasionally encountered individuals with dogs off their leashes,

especially with the opening of the reserve center.

Typically, an individual will leash the dog when they see me

getting closer. If not, I politely say that their dog really should

be on a leash. In response, I’ve heard, “he doesn’t bite, don’t

worry,” “no he doesn’t, this is the Back Bay,” or “she’s just getting

a little exercise, don’t worry.”

Anyway, just a note of support for the ruling against the “but the

water is not part of the beach” mentality when it comes down to

unleashed dogs.

TIM BARDEN

Costa Mesa

I was so glad to hear that we are enforcing a leash law in the

water. The water, I suppose, is now a public place as deemed by the

panel of Supreme Court judges, but is there a line of demarcation? In

other words, if I am 10 miles out to sea on my sailboat, must I jump

out in the water with a 6-foot leash on my dog? After all, the water

is a public place, and I must consider the public’s welfare.

Obviously, my personal welfare should have no priority whatsoever

as exemplified by Lynn Butterfield’s case where she cannot swim, but

is now forced to enter the water with her dog on a 6-foot lead. Could

it be possible for her to be endangered, or is she not representative

of the public?

What is the liability for the state/county in a case where a

compliant citizen takes his/her dog into the water with a 6-foot

leash and subsequently drowns as a result of a possible mishap (i.e.

wave overpowering the person, dog panics on leash, etc.)? I suppose

the court judges have vast experience in this situation and would be

able to come up with ways to circumvent these situations.

I would love to take three dogs from a local shelter, place them

on 6-foot leads and invite the Supreme Court judges to come swim with

these dogs on their leashes in the open ocean with waves crashing

down on them. Do you suppose they might rethink their judgment?

I think that our local governments are becoming far too myopic in

their interpretation of law. Special interest groups have been

allowed to distort the better judgment of our leaders. When will we

return to a time where common sense dictates, and superfluous laws

are thrown into the “circular file?” We become so involved with the

small things and forget to see the larger picture (Gag at a gnat and

swallow a camel; cant see the forest for the trees, etc.). When will

this end?

Will we become so perverse that for the good of the public, we

will mandate exactly what foods must be eaten at what times, how much

water we must consume each day at what rate, how and where we must

play with our children, and so on? It is obvious that the government

feels we are not educated or savvy enough to get along in our

everyday affairs, so they must intervene for our benefit and

well-being.

This judgment is a prime example of the governments’ concern for

our well-being. Three people making an educated decision for the

masses. Who qualified them in this matter?

RICK KROST

Newport Beach

I applaud them. I believe dogs should be leashed at all times in

all places. I also believe their owners, sorry guardians, should be

leashed as well. Or perhaps, better yet, lashed.

WINTHROP HOPGOOD

Newport Beach

Of all the stupid things. Forcing owners to hold the leash of a

swimming dog is dangerous for the dog and dangerous for the owner.

The whole purpose of a leash is so the dog won’t pester other dogs or

people. How is that possible if it is swimming? This is totally

ridiculous.

JIM VAN VORST

Irvine

Yeah, I think it’s a sad day. Evidently the judges don’t have

dogs, and I realize the beaches are crowded but we obey all the lease

laws and letting your dog swim in the water certainly is not going to

hurt anybody. They can’t bite anybody in the water and, if nothing

else, they should have some designated areas. You know they’ve got

dog parks and everything else. I have a hard time with this.

ROBERT HOFFMAN

Newport Beach

As I read the article, the state of California has a leash law to

keep people from being bit, however, a dog that has proven not be a

threat to anyone else around is already a safe dog.

I disagree with the judges’ ruling that a dog cannot enjoy the

beach. Huntington Beach has a dog beach. I think Newport Beach should

also have a dog beach and we should actually be rewarding residents

who have well-trained dogs by allowing them to let those dogs out and

around and enjoy the same things and the same luxuries as a child

because they are treated like a child.

I hope that the city of Newport Beach will have a dog park just

like Huntington Beach has. They seem to be mimicking the growth

Huntington Beach has by having larger structures and encouraging

people to come down and enjoy their place, so I would think that

people that have dogs that have shown they are actually social.

The state’s mandate -- which is a law that was just adopted this

year -- says a dog has to be a social animal, that those dogs that

are social animals were actually rewarded by being allowed to be a

social animal and enjoy the same benefits as everyone else.

Especially if the animal is being well-care for and being picked up

after.

We have a great deal of hatred in this country and I don’t think

that should be expanded upon animals that are supposed to be

well-cared for and under the care of an individual.

JIM HILDRETH

Newport Beach