Quantcast

Wiener Wants To Legislate Dog Walking Now

dog-walking-legislation-wiener.jpg
Photo: Baxterboo
Supervisor Scott Wiener has taken the bold step of authoring some new legislation that will make it illegal for dog walkers in San Francisco to walk more than seven pooches at a time. So, in short, our Board of Supervisors have extended their nanny-state agenda from saving our children from Happy Meals to saving birds from buildings and now saving dogs from being walked under extra-crowded conditions.

At the heart of the matter seems to be the complaint that dog walkers who walk too many dogs at once don't pick up all the poop that spills forth out of their many behinds. Wiener says he is open to revising the maximum number, and dog walkers complain that they need to be able to walk enough dogs at once to make money. Also coming down the pike is federal legislation regarding Ocean Beach that will limit walkers to six leashes at maximum.

Under Wiener’s proposed ordinance, a permit for dog walking would cost $250 for the first year and need to be renewed every year for $100. Violations would result in fines of up to $500, and the offending dog walkers names would be posted on the Animal Care and Control Department site for up to three years. We're sure the SFPD is going to LOVE enforcing this one. Not.

Update: This comment is from Supervisor Scott Wiener, the author of the legislation:

Thank you for covering the legislation. It's easy to characterize a lot of different kinds of legislation as "nanny state," but respectfully, that is not the case here. This legislation is not a sudden or new thing. Dogwalkers and dog owners have been pushing for this legislation for almost a decade. The strongest proponents are the professional dogwalker associations, who are eager to set basic standards for their profession. They worked with me on the legislation since day one. Since I introduced the legislation, I have received feedback from an enormous number of dogwalkers, and the vast majority support the legislation, though understandably people have diverse views about what the legislation should look like.

In addition, San Francisco is not even close to the first city to adopt dogwalker regulations. We'll be something like number 10 or 12, including Toronto, Boulder, the Easty Bay Park District, and Marin County. The Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and Presidio Trust will also be setting regulations, including a limit on the number of dogs. If everyone around us is regulating dogwalkers, including limiting the number of dogs, but we do not, guess what that means for our parks. They will become that much more attractive for dogwalkers.

What the article doesn't mention is that in addition to the limit on the number of dogs, the ordinance also requires that dogwalkers receive training, transport dogs in a safe manner, carry first aid kits in their vehicles, have liability insurance, and carry enough leashes with them for each dog, and so forth. So, to state that the law is simply about dog poo is incorrect. It's about setting basic standards for people who are using our city parks, currently for free, to conduct their businesses. Dogwalkers provide a critical service for San Franciscans, but their businesses also have impacts on our parks. As a result, it's perfectly reasonable to set standards.

This legislation is supported by dogwalker professional associations, the City's major dog owner groups, and the SPCA. The Small Business Commission voted unanimously to support it.


[Examiner]
[NBC Bay Area]

Contact the author of this article or email tips@sfist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • njudah
    this way the law can be put on a piece of junk mail in a few years. enforcing existing laws about dog poop would not look as cool.

    it makes for good blog fodder and comments bait at SFgate though. but like sit/lie, it won't be enforced and nothing will change. poop for everyone!
  • ssdd
    Talk about anal retentive!  Wiener's agenda is butt-oriented.  Top or bottom, Scott?
  • Mark Daniel Snyder
    This legislation doesn't concern me, its Wieners constant attacks ont he homeless that are an issue in our fine city. He has offered no solutions to homelessness in this city, only bans and fines. He is currently trying to ban people from even napping in the Castro plaza at any hour of the day. Don't fall asleep accidentally, you may be slapped with a fine! Harvey Milk is rolling in his grave knowing that the person representing his district is hell-bent on criminalizing homeless queer youth.
  • Really? Cause last time I checked San Francisco spends
    around “41 percent of its discretionary budget — about half a billion dollars — on nonprofits, mostly to provide social services for the poor, homeless, elderly, and others.”

    And that’s not good enough for you?

    Welcome to the land of the free. You’re free to be a deadbeat if you want to and even with an annual budget of around $500 million in resources out there at your disposal if you still choose that lifestyle I don’t think it’s the  government’s problem to “fix” or find solutions to.

    Fucking perpetually menstruating hearts  in this city and their incestuous obsession with the Nanny State.
  • Whether you think the legislation is good or bad, I think everyone would agree that this is not important enough to spend time or money on when we have really serious problems to be dealt with (homelessness, pollution, pedestrian/bike safety, MUNI dysfunction, etc.). This guy is wasting valuable resources.
  • Another bullshit cash-grab by a retarded politician who, during a time when the real unemployment rate is around 20%, thinks it’s a great idea to nickel and dime small time workers.

    And if you really gave a fuck about the state of our parks (We all know you don’t but it’s so adorable of you to pretend to care), how
    about doing something about all the junkies that use it as their toilet to
    shoot up. 

    I’ll gladly take accidently stepping in dog poop over some dirty IV needle any day of the week.
  • I think that another issue is the nice enclosed dog parks that the walkers like to empty their rein-teams into. Three or four dog-walkers arriving with huge groups translates into instant pandemonium at Collingwood, for example. There's also something worrisome about the City being an unwilling business partner at that point.
  • If there should be any dog laws in this town it should be the muzzling of all of Vegansaurus's pitbulls.
  • picklespickles
    Wiener's priorities seem bizarre. I voted for Mandleman because he seemed to really care about his voters and had practical, compassionate mojo. Weiner just gets weirder and less focused. I see a problem, for sure with OUT OF CONTROL (!!!) dogwalkers, but is this an issue worthy of a politcian's efforts in a time of such challenge?
  • I would like to remind everyone Harvey Milk made dog poop part of this winning campaign. 

    As a dog walker, I see too many other dog walkers with way more dogs than they can handle, deliberately looking the other way when their dogs eliminate, and spend more time chatting with the other dog walkers than paying attention to their charges. And have you seen what happens when one dog of the eight the walker has goes aggro? Then the whole pack looses it and the dog walker has no control over any of them.

    What happens to your dog if it's injured; can your walker perform first aid? Is your walker bonded or could they just run off with your beloved Fido?

    Say what you will about Walker's legislation, but he's got a point.
  • fizzandpop
    This is FOX fodder, stop it.
  • aidaaan
    Seems reasonable, especially given Scott's thoughtful reply.

    Now if we could only do something about all the HUMAN poop.
  • WeaselBase1
    Every business gets a business license to operate--why shouldn't dog-walkers?  It's also a lot easier for police to see someone walking 10 dogs than for them to lie in wait for a dog to take a dump and not get cleaned up.  

    We all pay through sales and property taxes for the upkeep of our parks, so why shouldn't the people using them to operate a business give some of that back?  This makes sense, and legislating/governing is what we elected our elected officials to do.
  • hssrinsf
    Ugh, if only they could spend as much time on people pooing on streets. I've seen many horrible things on 7th/market
  • dirty 30's
    Right?! I'd rather step in dog poop then some dood's BM
  • Is dogwalkers not picking up poop a big problem? Why not just more rigorous enforcement of existing fines on people who don't pick up after their dogs? Or, why doesn't Mr. Wiener find a hobby so that he doesn't have as much time to think up inane legislations to solve nonproblems?
  • I hope those dogs use towels to cover their holes of shame!
  • zouaf
    Scott Wiener is fast transforming from one of my favorite supervisors to one of the most annoying.
  • "At the heart of the matter seems to be the complaint that dog walkers who walk too many dogs at once don't pick up all the poop that spills forth out of their many behinds."

    So cite them for blocking the sidewalk and for not picking up the poop.  Why do we need another law to address the same thing?

    It's just like the sit-lie law -- if what these people are doing is already illegal, how will yet another law help?
  • PorkedBun
    This legislation is about dog shit but it could more aptly be described as a pile of the bull variety.
blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@sfist.com