You wouldn’t think dog poop held so much power. But on October 3rd, 2015, the participants at the public discussion to address restricted dog use of the grassy area at the top of the park, dog use hours, off leash fines, and other concerns hosted by Park Commission and Public Works staff with an Animal Control officer spent two hours discussing just that: Piedmont’s “puppy poo-problem.”  In the months prior, a petition signed by 107 people was brought to the Park Commission presenting the possibility of changing the lawn area off of Dracena Ave. from an on-leash into an off-leash area for dogs.

    Piedmonters from all over town were present: dog-owners; parents; and neighbors alike were gathered because of a common passion for pets, parks, and poop.  Captain Jeremy Bowers and Officer Monica Hueston started off the meeting with friendly statements on the current patrol situation.  There is only one animal control officer on duty at a time, and they are in charge of patrolling more than just Piedmont’s four parks because of their contract with Emeryville.  Because they have so many parks to patrol, they generally rely on phone calls from neighbors who report an issue.  Captain Bowers urged the neighbors at the meeting to continue calling when they saw something, because they depend on those calls to know where to go.  They finished by reminding those in attendance that they do what they do because of public safety, and they will support whatever decision is reached.

    Dr. Elaine Pico, speaking for those in favor of the lawn becoming off-leash, finds that this change wouldn’t be harmful to the area.  She argued that the area isn’t used by children or picnickers of any sort, and this change would give the lawn a second-coming, a rebirth of dog attention.  Others complained that the ravine, currently an off-leash area, is not enough room for owners to throw balls for their dogs without hitting other walkers.  Dogs also seem to prefer grass on their paws, making the lawn a perfect area for running.

    On the other hand, neighbors from all around the park came to the meeting to strongly oppose this prospect. Don Eidam mentioned that he finds dog business left behind in the park on a daily basis, primarily from dogs that wander away from their owners while off-leash.  In response to this, Terri Ashton mentioned that she stepped in some dog poop on her way to her spot on the grass.

    Dogs, who are taken off leash legally in the ravine, are allowed to wander off on their own unsupervised, even wandering across Dracena Avenue into the homes of neighbors across the street.  “We have had many uninvited 4-legged guests in our home and yard over the years.  Last week I found a boxer in my family room slobbering all over the contents of my purse. We even had a dog pee on my living room sofa once. I usually grab them by the collar and walk them down to their owners on the grass below. Sometimes they haven’t even noticed they were missing yet,” explained Tami Becker, a resident whose home overlooks the lawn.

    Over the years, Becker has seen the increase of dog droppings left behind and has begun to worry about having more dogs wander across the street to innocently enter her home.  If the lawn were to become completely off-leash, she fears that more dogs would walk across the street more often, becoming an even bigger hazard to cars on the streets.  Many other neighbors were in agreement; they were worried about the possibility of more dogs wandering around the streets unwatched, because they see it happening often already.

    Because I’ve spent many hours at Dracena Park on my own, I felt prepared to speak on the behalf of those opposed to this possible change.  As a kid, I remember having my lunch eaten and being chased out of the park by unguarded dogs who roamed into the open lawn.  If the upper lawn were to become off-leash, dogs would have more access to a bigger space, which would make it harder for owners to keep track of their beloved pets.

    I found many of the statements and arguments made by those in favor of this change came across as extraneous.  One woman created an unnecessary issue by calling out to a younger neighbor, insisting that they could “work together” if he didn’t push people like herself away.  Another woman slipped in a mention of her profession, working with children who have disabilities, not to add to the argument but to create sympathy.  One neighbor was called a “doomsayer” because of her fear resulting from dogs peeing on the currently green grass.  In each of those cases, I felt uncomfortable and frustrated that people were creating issues out of nothing.

There isn’t a foregone outcome in this argument now, and there won’t be for quite awhile; the Park Commission isn’t planning on voting for at least a month.  They do, however, urge  those interested and impassioned by the issue to step forward and present their voice.  If this is you, stop by City Hall for a Park Commission meeting — maybe I’ll see you there!

Editors Note: Opinions expressed are those of the author.