Sylmar Hang Gliding Association

I understand that there was an incident in the LZ where some dogs got into a fight. I heard the fight was so vicious that people threw chairs at the dogs to break it up. I don't know if one or both dogs got hurt.

This brings up the issue of the no dog rule. I know the Club has had the rule for many years but lately, it seems pilots are ignoring this rule.

<b>I believe the Club is a self-policing organization--the Board is NOT responsible for upholding the rules. We all are.</b>

I wondered if someone could address the liability the Club (or a dog owner) might face in an incident like this. Is our LZ--and ultimately the site--at stake?

Why do we have the no dogs rule in the first place? I think many pilots think it's to keep dogs from peeing on gliders but I have a suspicion it goes deeper than that.

Any insight the Board has on the specific incident as well as the liability aspect of someone (like a CHILD) getting mauled would be most appreciated.

lw

I really can't answer your questions but I have read that owner's could be, and have been, held liable for damages. Also, some homeowner's policies specifically exclude some breeds of dogs (Pit Bulls, etc.).

I would be interested in knowing what breeds were involved and if their owner even has a "clue" as to their responsibility and possible lack of insurance coverage.

Without taking a stand on the issue, I'll pass along some information:

Years ago we had a dog in the LZ bite a child in the face. We got lucky and nobody sued us. Clearly they could have.

Our property owners insurance won't cover us if we allow dogs, or so I was told by the treasurer when I was President.

There are indeed numerous cases of dogs urinating (and at least once) defecating on gliders and/or equipment in our LZ.

We have no dogs in the LZ. Only LZ-goats, a recently resurrected breed.
However, I doubt our insurance covers goat-bites, either.

The problem is that most of the goats brought out these days appear friendly and benign and their owners are our friends. The LZ is a nice park, the owners pick up after their goats (mostly) and many of us enjoy the goats' company and antics.

Unfortunately, even people-friendly goats that would usually never consider biting a human are territorial at some level. If a human intervenes in a dispute, or if the goat is just tired of the incursions in its territory, humans don't look that different to the goats. Meat is meat.

There is no good single answer to the problem except to ban goats as dogs were banned before them. However, there may be some compromise. Most of us have no desire to push friends away but we worry about the liability issues, even as we watch the happy goats gambol across the grass.

Leashes are an option; they give owners an added measure of control.
Leashes may be mandatory when non-members are present anywhere in the LZ. Most of us members aren't going to file suit to take away our own LZ.

Off leash areas could be defined; a sort of no-man's-land populated only by goat owners while any goats are in attendance and no non-members.

Goat owners can check their own insurance policies and, if they find that they are covered for damages caused by their goat away from home, have that on file with the club. I leave that one to the lawyers; I don't know who would be most liable.

Goat owners definitely must watch their companions and clean up after them. I'm talking specifically about the goats; most of the other animals they mingle with at the LZ are uncontrollable in any setting.

I believe that goats are here to stay. The BOD isn't responsible for giving out the bad news all the time and the membership at large isn't going to do that either. We aren't police and we aren't going to tell each other what to do; we just grumble about things when the objects aren't in ear-shot.

But we can figure out a good way to protect ALL our interests with a bit of thoughtfulness. Right?

As much as I like dogs (I have one) MAYBE the "club" (Board) needs to do "something" BEFORE there is yet another incident.

I've read somewhere (archives) that there use to be an issue with a certain Pilot that violated the club's rules. Ultimately, the club terminated the pilot's membership and informed the pilot that if they ever touched club property the police would be called for treaspassing.

While this maybe considered a radical move - the fact is, if the club/board feels this is necessary it is an option. Simply stated, all members are told/reminded that pets are not allowed and if they violate this club rule they are not allowed on the Club's property. Simple, to the point, and no finger pointing at any one individual.

If someone violates the rule - they're history!

Radical, yes
Effective, yes
Popular, Yes & No

My guess? - The club will decide to do nothing - as usual.

Crestline used to laugh at our no-dog rule.

Then they got grass. Then dogs peed on gliders, had fights, scared people (don't know if anyone was actually bitten, but people thought they might be due to the "angry" dogs.)

So, they instituted a leash rule. People ignored it. Too easy to let the dog off when there weren't others around. Then "forget" to put them back on the leash. More incidents occurred.

So, they instituted a no-dogs in the LZ rule. (Sound familiar?) They have a parking lot that is separate from the LZ, so they are (or were?) allowing dogs in the parking lot, but not the LZ.

Now they don't laugh about us that way any more.

At the monthly board meeting on Thursday, April 10, we amended the SHGA rules to say:

12. Any dog on SHGA property must be kept on a leash, in the presence of its owner, and under control. Any dog that creates an annoyance, in the judgement of the board, may be excluded from the property.

Changes to club rules warrant careful consideration, and this one was no exception. We discussed the problem at length with the club members most affected, with our neighbors, and among ourselves. A couple goals became clear. First, the "No dogs are allowed in the Flight Park" rule wasn't working. The rule often wasn't followed, and club members weren't pressuring each other to comply. Instead, we need a compromise that everyone can see as reasonable. Second, we want a rule that applies equally to club members and to our neighbors.

The Los Angeles Municipal Code requires dogs to be on a leash and under the control of their owners any time they're away from home, and we didn't see a way to improve on that principle. I hope that the new rule appears fair to members with dogs, members without, neighbors, maybe even the dogs themselves.

As always, the board can make the rules, but it can't make them work. That only happens if everyone in the club is willing to make the effort to to so, and to provide a little persuasion to others when necessary. Let's give it a try.

Ken,

The new dog rule seem like a very resonable compromise. Nice job! I imagine it applies to goats as well...

Ken Andrews wrote:At the monthly board meeting on Thursday, April 10, we amended the SHGA rules to say:

12. Any dog on SHGA property must be kept on a leash, in the presence of its owner, and under control. Any dog that creates an annoyance, in the judgement of the board, may be excluded from the property.

Changes to club rules warrant careful consideration, and this one was no exception. We discussed the problem at length with the club members most affected, with our neighbors, and among ourselves. A couple goals became clear. First, the "No dogs are allowed in the Flight Park" rule wasn't working. The rule often wasn't followed, and club members weren't pressuring each other to comply. Instead, we need a compromise that everyone can see as reasonable. Second, we want a rule that applies equally to club members and to our neighbors.

The Los Angeles Municipal Code requires dogs to be on a leash and under the control of their owners any time they're away from home, and we didn't see a way to improve on that principle. I hope that the new rule appears fair to members with dogs, members without, neighbors, maybe even the dogs themselves.

As always, the board can make the rules, but it can't make them work. That only happens if everyone in the club is willing to make the effort to to so, and to provide a little persuasion to others when necessary. Let's give it a try.

The reason that the old dog rule didn't work was simple. The club members (including the BOD) wouldn't enforce it. The only way the new rule can work is if (you guessed it!) the members enforce it. I don't necessarily agree with the new rule, I can see issues. But, I would LOVE to be wrong. When I was President (and before that just a BOD member) the part of the job I hated most (even more than the Dino stuff) was enforcing the dog rule. But I did it. Clearly, most BOD members (even then) were unwilling to do so. Maybe the new rule will help with that.

So, PLEASE, if you are a dog-owner, follow the rule. If you are not a dog owner (or especially if you are!) enforce the rule. Do it politely. Do it tenderly. But DO IT. Please make me wrong about the new rule by making it work!

On a slightly side-note and to the BOD: What about our insurance issue? Dan told me when I was President that our insurance required the no-dog rule. Has that changed, or is there some rewording or something that has gone on? Just curious.

Another question: Is a dog that has a leash attached but not being held by the owner or tied to something "on a leash in the presence of its owner"? I can see an ambiguity here.

One last comment: It is my understanding that the dog that bit the child in our LZ years ago was on a leash in the presence of its owner. The owner wasn't holding the leash, but was nearby and the dog was tied to one of the picnic tables. Perhaps I'm mistaken, as I was at the other end of the LZ at the time.

I agree with everyone above, except Don. I dont' want my friends banned from the LZ as Dino was.

I like the dogs that have come to the LZ but, having been nearby when they begin to get a little out-of-hand, I'd rather the owners have direct control of their pet. Once I took my dog, on his short leash, to a park clinic for shots. The lady behind me didn't have her large Shepherd mix on a leash. He took my small Keeshond down by the throat. I kicked that dog in the belly until he screeched and let go. I may have hurt him badly. I would do it again to protect my interests or a child.

So, when I look at one of my friends and say the word "leash" when their pet is free in the LZ, I hope they'll understand and respond just as they have when I tell them to pick up after them.

How about a dog playpen where they could be enclosed but have room to run.

Cabbagehead wrote:How about a dog playpen where they could be enclosed but have room to run.

Here we go again. This has been discussed before. It is a terrible idea.

1) The owners won't be there with the dog
2) The dogs will leave droppings
3) Because there will likely be more than one dog in the pen, and the owner won't see who did what, the offal will not get picked up
4) The pen will stink (And trust me, dog stuff is far worse than the outhouse to non-dog owners - and maybe to many dog owners)
5) If there is a dog-fight, the owner won't be right there to intervene (That's why "under the direct control of the owner" is part of the new rule
6) When dogs begin to bark or howl, and the owner isn't there, who will stop it? The complaining neighbors?
7) If you want to keep your dog penned up, why not do it at home? I thought the point was that the dog owners wanted their dogs WITH THEM and able to move about. If you are going to stick them in a pen and go fly, why did you bring them in the first place?
Where do you suggest having it? Take away some of our breakdown area? Landing area? Eating/bull-session area? Remove some parking places? Under the all-too-scarce shade? And if not, do you want the dogs trapped in full sun during the summer.

There are other issues. I was on the BOD when it was discussed at least two different times. Each time, even the dog-friendly BOD members realized that there was no good way to do this.

Oh yea, and the nail in the coffin: Why should the majority of the club members pay to install a pen for other people's dogs? Or accept a loss of usable space in the LZ? Or the smell and noise? Especially when many don't even want the dogs there? Or are you suggesting that the dog-owners buy all the materials, pay for (or supply) all of the labor, but then allow the rest of the club to dictate design and location (as they should)? And are you suggesting that they will pay someone to keep the pen clean and smell free, and keep the dogs quiet and stop fights?

I will repeat what I said on the alcohol thread: This is a hang gliding club. I have no objection to other things going on here (including light drinking and well-controlled dogs.) That's fine and dandy. But the instant any of those other things gets in the way of flying and related activities, even a little bit, I object strenuously. There are thousands of places to go drink. There are hundreds of places to take your dog. There is one practical southerly-facing mountain flying site in LA County, and only a handful of any other kind. Keep this in perspective.

Hi! This is Mrs. Cabbage Butt. I have got to come clean. Richard is out of town so I am scanning his e-mails for important and relevant information he would want to know about. Because I am a rabid dog afficionado, I read the dog article and brilliantly and independently of him came up with the dog pen idea. When I responded, I didn't realize it would be attributed to him. So RICHARD does not endorse a dog pen (but I do). So I'm sorry, George, that you had to go to the trouble of outlining all the reasons a dog pen is a bad idea. And since I am personally not going to volunteer to clean up the dog poop twice a day, I guess I agree with you. So sorry about the bad idea. Can we just move on? Richard should be back about mid-may to clean this all up and is threatening to build a critter pen to keep me out of trouble.

Not to worry. I came back today to apologize for the tone of my post, and saw that not only was I too harsh, but it went to someone who was unintended.

While I think everything I said was correct, I do think that my tone was not productive. I can only plead guilty to fatigue. In general and of this topic.

And I will admit that when the idea you brought up was first mentioned years ago, I thought it was a good one. Until I thought it through. So it should not come as a surprise to me that others would think it was a good idea at first.

Again, my apologies for the tone.

Your comments are balanced and justified, George, this is a flying club, not a dog club. I have to comment that I've seen some neighbors strolling through the LZ with some large dogs on leash that looked like they'd get away easily if they had something to chase.

Also, what's the deal with the horse traffic?

Wayne

going back to JT's post, what about DINO? can't we point out to him how dangerous carting is, and SOMEHOW get him back among us--before we need uniforms and N numbers to fly hang gliders...

The club bent over backwards to get Dino to come back into the club. All he had to do was agree in writing to follow the rules, and accept that we'd be watching to make sure he did so. That's it. We agreed to accept him at his word (in writing), trusting that he'd actually do what he agreed to do. Many successive BODs have been very reasonable about this. The ball remains where it has been for years: In Dino's court. Until then, since he refuses to obey the rules, and has stated repeatedly that they don't apply to him, he is not allowed on the property.

There is much more history here, but this isn't the place for it.