Trish King Refutes Brent Plater

As we've reported recently in FETCH, the issues around off-leash use of public lands are heating up again (not that they ever really died down--things were just quieter in the first phases of negotiated rulemaking).

In a recent letter to FETCH, off-leash opponent Brent Plater made some claims about prominent experts and their "views" of dogs being off leash. One of them, Trish King, was mentioned in Plater's letter and Trish wants to go on record to let everyone know her TRUE thoughts on off-leash time for dogs:

With reference to a letter to the editor in the February issue, the quote in question was taken out of context from an article I wrote about dog parks.  The article was a cautionary one about owners taking responsibility for their dogs, and understanding potential problems in dog parks.  The article is confined to enclosed dog parks, not open space areas or trails. Dog behavior is complex and can change depending on the locale.

I would like to clarify my position on this matter; I am philosophically in favor of responsible off leash play. 

Trish is the Behavior & Training Director at the Marin Humane Society. Many dog owners respect Trish immensely for her expertise and understanding of canine behavior and we appreciate that she's taking a stand for responsible off leash play.

Comments

[Brent Plater]

This blog falsely claims that I am an "off-leash opponent," even though the letter sent to Fetch clearly explains this is not the case. It is not even an accurate description of any of the conservationist at the negotiated rulemaking table:

"Second, Mr. Dirickson claims that responsible dog guardians who wish to share the park with imperiled species are "off-leash recreation opponents." This is not true. Nearly every conservationist at this negotiation is also a dog guardian. We have put forth several proposals for off-leash recreation at the GGNRA, including proposals for Fort Funston, Fort Mason, and Ocean Beach. To suggest we are off-leash opponents denigrates our efforts to share the GGNRA with our dogs, the disabled, and the park’s imperiled wildlife."

Further, the letter sent to Fetch clearly states that Ms. King's publications were about dogs in "dog parks," not open spaces or trails. To suggest this somehow "refutes" anything in the letter, or Ms. King's previous statements about off-leash dog parks, is pure spin:

"Third, Mr. Dirickson claims that publications describing how off-leash activities can lead to leash aggression in dogs are "totally without merit," and even disputes the studies' very existence, claiming that they were "anonymous" publications and only "allegedly published." These statements are not only false, but show a surprising ignorance for a man charged with leading this once venerable institution. Trish King, the Marin Humane Society's Director of Behavior and Training and contributor to Fetch, has explained repeatedly that off-leash experiences at dog parks can lead to on-leash aggression. For example, in her August 12, 2006 Marin Independent Journal column titled “Dog Parks are a Great Place to Learn Bad Behavior,” Ms. King stated that “dogs can learn that they have the right to meet and greet other dogs. While this doesn’t sound like a problem, it can lead to ‘leash aggression,’ which is really a canine tantrum.”"

[Stephen Sayad]

Brent Plater has demonstrated, over and over, that he will go to any length to lie. His nonsense about "off-leash aggression" was put before the Court in United States v. Barley and rejected en toto. He has lied to the San Francisco Police Commission, to a federal court, and to the San Francisco Animal Welfare Commission. He should lose his license to practice law.

[Stephen Sayad]

Brent Plater has demonstrated, over and over, that he will go to any length to lie. His nonsense about "off-leash aggression" was put before the Court in United States v. Barley and rejected en toto. He has lied to the San Francisco Police Commission, to a federal court, and to the San Francisco Animal Welfare Commission. He should lose his license to practice law.

[Rocky Golub]

I say as long as Plater only practices law and doesn't actually do it for real, the world may still be safe.

Oh, the lies:
Plater and his minions in Negotiated Rulemaking have aggressively lobbied the GGNRA to eliminate all of the .5 percent of the entire GGNRA designated by the 1979 Pet Policy for off-leash recreation. Also, he has concurrently lobbied the S.F. Police Commission and the SFRPD to eliminate off-leash recreation in all of the designated dog play areas/parks. So what's left? If Mr. Plater wants to continue his charade that he is actually an off-leash proponent, I challenge him to produce an actual, sustainable, economically feasible plan for off-leash dog areas that will replace in total all of the areas he has been fighting so hard to eliminate. If he thinks that one or two small pens in some poison oak infested remote area will accommodate the 150,000 dogs of S.F. proper, then he is more deceitful than even I imagined.

Give us a break, Brent, and go back home to Michigan. You have no business telling those of us who have lived in this area for generations what we can and can't do for recreation. Who is the non-native, invasive species here?

[Mariya]

The tipping point was when my neighbors started to complain about my dog's constant barking and growling at their kids. That was when I went on a personal mission, and spent hundreds of dollars and years reading tons of books and watching videos. I even took my dog to obedience school in my attempt to turn her into a better, more manageable pet. But the frustrating part was that some of the things I learned were useful, but most of it was WRONG--most of it simply didn't work when I tried it!