Sylmar Hang Gliding Association

The new dog rule is better. It tracks the L.A. Municipal Code, which provides:
SEC. 53.06.2. RESTRAINT OF DOGS.
(a) Every person owning or having charge, care, custody or control of any dog shall keep such dog exclusively upon his own premises provided, however, that such dog may be off such premises if it be under the control of a competent person and restrained by a substantial chain or leash not exceeding six feet in length, …(or at a dog park).
Our new rule also allows us to exclude any dog that “creates an annoyance,� in the judgment of the board. This provision is intended to make this rule only a hair away from a “no dogs� rule.
You can’t leave a dog tied up to a table, or the fence, or closed up in your car and go fly, because the rule requires the “presence� and the control of a competent person – the owner, or wife, private security guard or dog nanny – a person, whose job is to control the dog.
It means that the board has the discretion to make the decision whether a dog “creates an annoyance.� An annoyance would be:
1. Injury to a person or pet. – definitely!
2. Aggressive actions towards a person or pet, nipping, growling - definitely!
3. Crapping without cleanup – probably.
4. Peeing on gliders, helmets, harnesses, any other equipment – probably.
5. Making too much noise – sustained barking or whining. – maybe
6. Too energetic? - Possibly. Some dogs, jumping and straining at the leash are a hazard – who knows what will happen if they break the leash or jerk it out of the owner’s hand? That’s what happened to Mike Knapp’s dog. Big dogs jerked the leash out of the owner’s hand and nearly killed Mike’s dog, who ran at them to say “hello,� but they took it as an invitation to attack.

Too vague? Stay tuned.

Next question – Isn’t “annoyance� a little vague? Doesn’t it depend on the person making the judgment?
YES. It is intended to be a flexible standard that can be adapted to conduct that we cannot anticipate. What if a friendly dog jumps up on a little kid and knocks her down so that it injures her. We might exclude that dog, unless the owner could make persuasive assurances that it cannot happen again. It means that only well-behaved dogs are allowed in the LZ. It means that if your dog is a problem in any way, it’s a no-dog rule for that dog.

Hey! Isn’t that a little unfair? How is a person supposed to conform to a rule if they don’t know exactly how it will be interpreted?
NO. Come on. First, it’s not hard to understand. It’s really a “no dog� rule with a “nice dog on a leash� exception. If your dog isn’t nice, you can’t have it come to the LZ. And even if it’s nice, it has to be on a leash, in the presence of a competent person, and under control. If any of these requirements are not met, no dog. The rule is basically anti-dog with a little tiny exception, which will be strictly interpreted. This is more dog-friendly and more practical and workable than the “no dog� rule, which could never be enforced, because no one would rat out a nice dog, known in the LZ as a "goat.".
Second, this is not a dog park. It’s a hang gliding park. Everything else is secondary to that. You don’t take your dog to a Dodger game or to a music performance. You don’t need to bring it here.
Third, this rule will not be applied unfairly because the SHGA Rules Enforcement Policy won’t allow that.
Stay tuned some more.

Under the Club's written Rules Enforcement Policy, an unfair result is pretty unlikely.

If a person violates an SHGA rule, there is normally a three-step procedure.
1. The person gets an oral warning that he has violated a rule, and might be penalized in some way, and that if there is a second violation - - Holy Jeez - -
2. - he will get a written warning, that says, “If you do it a third time,
3. -we’re gonna send you another letter (Oh God, Not that!) that says that you have to come to a board meeting and persuade the board that punishment is not appropriate.
You could persuade the board by showing, for example –
- I killed the dog.
-The dog got away from me for an instant, and I promise and show that it won’t happen again.
- The leash broke, and I have a new one.
- From now on, my dog will wear a head restraint with the leash attached under the chin.
-I took the dog to obedience school, and he’s cured of his bad habit.
-The little kid hit my dog with a stick and my dog barked at the little snot.
- Another dog, not on a leash, charged at my dog.

Or any other good excuse. In fact, a dog owner who received an oral warning could explain to the person giving the warning what happened, and that would be the end of it – maybe. It doesn’t mean that any lame-ass excuse will fly. The burden of proof will always be on the dog owner.
You could respond to a written warning with a letter explaining how the incident happened and what you’ve done to prevent it recurring. You could respond to the invitation to the board meeting in the same way and ask to be excused from appearing personally.

There are a lot of opportunities to avoid having your dog excluded, even if it has misbehaved once. But this is not an “every dog gets one bite� rule.

If a dog bit a person on our property, that would probably be treated as a “Significant Incident,� which would eliminate the “second warning� requirement, and the board could immediately summon the dog owner to a regular or special meeting of the board, for a decision on whether the rule had been violated, and if so, what measures would be appropriate. Still, a dog owner might be able to persuade the board that there is no risk of another bite, so no reason for any action by the board.

Next - The boring legal stuff.

The legal stuff.
We all know that personal injury cases can result in huge judgments against the persons found to be liable. In any case where a person is uninsured or the judgment is greater than the insurance policy limits, the winner will come after the loser and start taking his assets – his house, his car, his Heisman Trophy.
So, if a person won a lawsuit against the Club for a personal injury on our property, they would collect the insurance, and if that didn’t cover the judgment, they would seek, and probably get a court order that we have to auction our property to satisfy the judgment. No more LZ, no more flying.
How could this happen? Easy – if a court found that the Club had failed to warn a person on the property - - whether that person is invited or a trespasser, it makes no difference –the landowner has the duty to warn everyone on the property of any known danger. “Hard hat area. Beware of falling objects.� “Piso mojado� “Rain on marble stairs makes them slippery.� You fail to fulfill the duty to warn and you are on the hook if a person is injured.
In our case, if we failed to warn everyone to come on our property that we allow dogs that have shown themselves to be aggressive, and a little kid’s face is torn off by a dog, we lose. Soon we not fly. If we allow dogs on the property at all, we have to be damn sure that we are not allowing any dangerous dogs. We hope the new rule can do that.
The “no dogs� rule didn’t work because it enforcement was lax. This rule won’t work unless someone enforces it. And guess what. I do not volunteer to be the only one who will try to enforce it. You all have to help.
If you see a dog in the LZ, it must be on a leash in the presence and control of a competent person. If it isn’t we need you to tell the person who brought the dog that they have to follow the rule.
I don’t come to the LZ to be a dog cop. The pay is not that good. I know you don’t either, but we have to do something about the dogs. I hope you’ll help.
Thanks.

Thanks Larry. Makes sense to me.

Wayne

Should we post "Dogs Must Be Kept On Leash" signs at the two street entries to replace the "no dogs" sign?

Should we post a "Watch for Aircraft Overhead" sign at the two ends of the horse trail? I was wondering, in light of your legal opinions, whether we would be liable for injury to an equestrian should their horse be spooked and throw them in the LZ because of a glider making an approach or landing.