Dogs on leash on Coalmine Ridge Portola Valley, posted by caeol jacobs, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Jun 9, 2007 at 12:12 pm
In response to Leashed dogs on Coalmine Ridge Tails , The Almanac 6/6/07, I would like to say that I am distressed at the dissension that has developed among the residents of Portola Valley concerning this issue. I have lived in the Portola Valley area for over 40 years and after raising our four sons here and fifty years of marriage and observing the town (as well as national foreign policies) one thing is clear--- we must learn to look at both sides of a situation and make fair and equitable compromises. It is true that some dog owners are irresponsible and let their dogs off leash, but some drivers of cars are irresponsible also, and we don't ban all cars from the roads. True also that some wild life is temporairly frightened by unleashed dogs, but according to a "Fish and Game" employee,, if dogs have frequented the area for some time and wild life still enters, it will continue to do so. True, also, that some women are afraid of unleased dogs on trails, but some women, hiking alone, are afraid of men on trails. It is also true that the town of Portola Valley has, thank goodness, miles of trails on which leashed dogs can walk, but it is also true that most of those trails are along Portola Road and other busy streets which do not afford the same experience as hiking with your leashed dog in the woods. If it is true that the majority of those opposed to leashed dogs on Coalmine trails are residents of the P.V. ranch (a small percentage of the population of If it is true that the majority of those opposed to leashed dogs on Coalmine Ridge are residents of P.V. Ranch (a small percentage of the town) then it seems fair that the wishes of the town majority should be considered. Are we not a democracy?? How about a vote?
Posted by Chris, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Jun 14, 2007 at 2:54 pm
I too have lived in Portola Valley for a long time, 38 years. First of all, as a man, I am afraid of dogs that are not on leash, so your sexist comment about women being afraid of unleashed dogs is way out of line, for someone who eludes to being so open minded.
Dogs are a nuisance, and those of us who don't want them around have that right too. your analogy between Dogs and Cars is ad hominem, and makes little sense.
Bottom line, domestic animals are just that, domestic. and Dogs are the most domestic of them all, please keep them on your property.
Posted by menlo park neighbor, a resident of the Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks neighborhood, on Jun 15, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Why is the public asked to compromise when someone is breaking the law? It is against the law to walk your dog off leash, period unless in a off leash area. The analogy to drivers is ridiculous. Obey the law people. You love your dog, great, don't disrespect the law.
Posted by Annelise Connell, a resident of the Portola Valley: Woodside Highlands neighborhood, on Jun 19, 2007 at 6:03 am
I have a small dog that I would love to walk on Coal Mine ridge. But I do NOT believe the existing law should be changed. There are so many trails where my dog and I are both allowed that some trails should be left to people alone. Before a vote is taken, there should also be a survey of the current illegal dogs on the trail to see if the dogs' owners are Portola Valley residents or (as I was for many years) non locals looking for a pretty place to take their dog out.
The law is fine the way it is. I have known people who were either attacked by dogs defending their turf (which included the public road) in residential Portola Valley, or bowled over by "friendly" dogs on trails. I do not think people should be run off coal mine ridge because of their legitimate fear or antipathy toward dogs.
Dogs are not taxpayers, and Portola Valley residents who do pay taxes and do not want to be harassed by dogs should have some trails where they can enjoy themselves.
Posted by Dog Owner, a resident of the Woodside: Skywood/Skylonda neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2007 at 2:34 pm
The only trail in our neighborhood where one can legally walk their dog on leash is the Thornedyke Nature Preserve. Dogs are prohbited on all other trails. They are also prohibited on the Beaches of San Mateo County. I am not in favor of walking dogs off leash. This is mainly for the safety of the dog. Dogs can get lost very easily when they are off leash. I do not see that anyone should be inconvenienced by an on leash dog
Posted by Chris, a resident of the Portola Valley: other neighborhood, on Jul 3, 2007 at 10:35 am
I'd agree if everyone would follow the rules, but I can't tell you how many times I'm out hiking and a big dog runs up to me with no owner in sight, then a few minutes later the owner shows up always saying "he wouldn't bite anyone" yeah right, we've heard that before. The main problem, like many others in Portola Valley, is that everyone thinks they are special or above the law, and things like leash laws just don't hit their radar.
no dogs, keep them away, or PV can start a dog park, then all you dog lovers can get together and play in the poop, it's really not my thing.
Posted by Eric, a resident of the Portola Valley: Central Portola Valley neighborhood, on Jul 5, 2007 at 4:54 pm
There will always be differences of opinion on the dog issue, and there is basically no way to resolve it. The most democratic way to handle the dog trail problem would be to have a vote on who wants to have dogs on the trails, and if 45% of the voters want dogs on trails, then (roughly) 45% of the trail miles in Portola Valley should be open to dogs.