Let off-leash dog's owners lie

As a park ranger, I am supposed to be unbiased and impartial on each and every law enforcement contact. The problem is, that after I have issued 100+ dog off-leash tickets, you start to think that everyone is a liar.

Here's how a typical dog off leash contact goes:

"Good afternoon, ma'am. My name is Ranger Gord. I see that you don't have your dog on a leash. Were you aware that we have a leash law in the park?"

"Oh, really? I had no idea. I see other people out here with their dog's off-leash, so I thought it was O.K. Besides, my dog is a really good dog."

"You didn't see the three signs that you drove past on the way to the parking lot that say 'Pets must be on a leash'?"

"No. I didn't see any signs."

"I see you found our dog cleanup bags. You didn't notice the sign on the dispenser?"

"No. I guess I didn't."

Is there truly anyone in America that seriously thinks that it is legal to have there dog off leash in a public park? I don't think we even need signs notifying people that they need to keep their dog on a leash. It's just common knowledge and should be common sense.

Here is a typical liar, err...I mean dog owner that is confronted by a park ranger:

Pontifica's Parlor: Got my mojo workinÂ’.

ThereÂ’s almost nothing I hate more than unyielding bureaucratic authority. In any case, last month I got a ticket for not having my dog on a leash in Griffith Park. I was on a favorite hike with Charming Girlfriend and said Lawless Hound, when said CG spied a Park Ranger up ahead in his Ranger Vehicle. Despite my quick sleight-of-hand, despite my wide-eyed protestations of innocence, said Heartless Ranger issued me a citation and told me to show up in court. I guess sending a check is not enough penance; they feel we scofflaws need a talking-to in person.

The last time I ignored such a summons (same dog, same lack of leash, different park) I got slapped with a fine exceeding one thousand dollars (which the Understanding Judge reduced to a mere $300).

She continues her post by pontificating about her ability to evade punishment through the use of her deceitful silver tongue to sweet talk the prosecutor into letting her off. She then details the disingenuous tale she told the prosecutor:

Okay, I lied a little. I said the Ranger was too far away to see whether my dog was leashed, and babbled on about how responsible I am after eleven years of dog-ownership. I might have even said that She Is Always On A Leash In The Park. Which is a big lie. She is Very (er, mostly) Well-Behaved and gets to run free whenever possible, especially at the beach.

Here is another miscreant dog owner that has a run in with the local park ranger:

blog.myspace.com/bs_rocks

So today I was at this wildlife reserve thing, and I was walking my dog, which is part rottweiler, part sharpei. Anyways, you're supposed to keep dogs on a leash, but I think it would suck to spend your life on a leash so I let her run around on her own. I mean, my dog's good, if I call her she'll come and she wouldn't run after anybody.

Anyways, this park ranger guy came up to me and said, "Excuse me, I'm gonna have to ask you to keep your dog on a leash. It's just so it doesn't disturb the wildlife." And I said "Oh, sorry, I forgot it. But she's good, she's not gonna chase anything." And right when I said that, my dog took off after a squirrel, caught it, and totally ripped it apart. I felt hella bad, but I kinda started laughing because it was so ironic.

And the ranger got mad and said, "I'm gonna have to write you a ticket." And I said "No speakee english." And I took my dog and started walking back to my car. And the dude was following me so we started running. I got to my car and we left. I think we got away before he got my license plate number. Anyways, I wasn't sure if those park rangers can actually write tickets or if he was just trying to scare me. But it was kinda funny, heheheh.

I'm a little confused. Maybe Ms. BS could explain to me how it's ironic when a park ranger tells you that you need to leash your dog so that it won't disturb the wildlife and then moments later it kills said wildlife. Irony is when the opposite of what is expected occurs, not that which is anticipated. I guess she does need to work on her English.

Here is my advice for you dog owners that insist on letting your dogs run wild through the parks: Go ahead and lie. The prosecutors and judges always enjoy a good laugh when they read the report I write on the back of the ticket.

Here's what Ms. BS' would look like:

At approximately 1420 hours on September 16, 2006 I observed a woman with a large dog without a leash running through Sacred Squirrel Wildlife Preserve. I notified the woman, Brittney Skye, that she needed to leash her dog in order to protect the park's wildlife. Ms. Skye stated to me in plain English without any hint of an accent that she had forgot to bring a leash. As Ms. Skye was insisting that her dog would never harm the wildlife, her dog ran after a squirrel and killed it. Ms. Skye did nothing to stop her dog. In fact she must have thought it was funny because she started to laugh. When I notified Ms. Skye that I was issuing her a citation, she stated with a heavy accent, "No speak English." She then called to her dog and ran to her car as I yelled at her to "Stop!" Ms. Skye drove out of the parking lot at a speed well in excess of the posted speed limit of 15 miles per hour. I pursued her vehicle in my patrol car and was able to stop her approximately 1 mile past the park entrance. I immediately read Ms. Skye her rights and arrested her for Eluding a Police Officer and Obstructing a Police Officer in addition to her dog off-leash infraction. Ms. Skye was booked into the county jail. During the drive to the jail, I had difficulty maintaining my professional demeanor as I experienced several uncontrollable fits of laughter.

off-leash dog liar girl park+ranger angry ticket

Ranger's killer found not guilty by insanity

I thought that a murder getting off on the insanity plea was as likely to happen as a witnesses actually performing a Perry Mason style confession on the stand. Unfortunately for the family of Steve Makuakane-Jerrell, I was wrong. In 1999, National Park Ranger Makuakane-Jerrell was killed by Eugene F. Boyce III while contacting Boyce about a dog off leash complaint. Judge Susan Oki Mollway found Boyce not guilty by reason of insanity because Boyce thought Ranger Makuakane-Jerrell was trying to kill him and his dogs.

I agree with Ranger Makuakane-Jerrell's widow that Boyce should have been found "guilty and insane." Our thoughts are with Ranger Makuakane-Jerrell's family this week.

Drifter is ruled insane in Kaloko-Honokohau killing (starbulletin.com)

The widow of a ranger shot in 1999 says the ruling makes it difficult to move on

After waiting seven years for justice, the family of a Big Island park ranger who was shot and killed by a drifter was deeply disturbed yesterday that the killer was found not guilty by reason of insanity. "Definitely it was a blow to us," said Joni Mae Makuakane-Jerrell, widow of park ranger Steve Makuakane-Jerrell. "It's not the kind of verdict that anybody wants, not especially when you have someone who committed such a brutal and violent crime."

Eugene F. Boyce III fatally shot Makuakane-Jerrell Dec. 12, 1999, at Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park. The ranger was investigating complaints against Boyce's three dogs. After a struggle, Boyce gained control over the ranger's semiautomatic handgun and shot him twice, once in the forehead, piercing his brain, and again in the right arm, according to testimony.

U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway found the 37-year-old Boyce not guilty only by reason of insanity following a five-hour nonjury trial. The verdict applies on all three charges of murder of a federal government employee engaged in official duties, using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

"Regardless of the fact that the doctors would say he's schizophrenic, I do have a problem with 'not guilty by reason of insanity,'" said Joni Mae Makuakane-Jerrell, a former law enforcement park ranger. "It should be guilty and insane."

A Federal Bureau of Prisons psychologist testified for the defense that Boyce suffered from paranoia and schizophrenia, and could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his acts due to his psychotic state, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ken Sorenson said. Sorenson said it was a problem trying to overcome the government's own psychologist. "In this instance, you have what is viewed as an impartial psychiatric and mental health entity," Sorenson said. The psychologist testified Boyce believed the ranger was trying to kill him and his dogs.

Joni Mae Makuakane-Jerrell said: "The 'not guilty by reason of insanity' means the burden of proof is on Boyce, yet we have to be there every time there's a hearing of any kind to be sure he won't get out, so it's still a burden. "You don't go on with your life, not with a verdict like that," she said. It has been tough these past seven years on the family of Steve Makuakane-Jerrell. "No matter how long it's been, it's not any easier," Joni Mae Makuakane-Jerrell said. "We think of him every day. "We think of all the things he's missed," she said of herself and her children, now 22, 23 and 30. "He never got to see the children graduate from high school. He never got to see our son get married."

Sorenson said he will ask for Boyce's continued detention Nov. 20 at a custody hearing and would continue "fighting for detention as long as he comes up for review." Boyce has been held at the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Mo. He will be remanded to the Bureau of Prisons for a mental health study to see whether he poses a risk of danger to people or property, the U.S. Attorney's Office said in a written statement.

Man sues to lift dog ban...stranger than fiction

No one would be surprised to hear that a dog lover would sue to lift a dog ban, even if it was in a National Park. What is surprising is that the beach in question is a nude beach. What is even more surprising is that the man, Mark DelCore, a former bodybuilder,
claims that nude sunbathing is a medical treatment used to treat a
strange skin condition which was caused by the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11. If that wasn't enough, DelCore states that he needs to bring his dog, which he claims is a service animal, with him to his nude sunbathing treatments for "emotional support and comfort" due to his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which was also caused by 9/11.

Man Sues Over Naked Beach Beef (The Smoking Gun)

A New York man who says that he suffers from a debilitating skin condition and post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the September 11 attacks is suing for the right to have his rat terrier accompany him to a naked beach on Fire Island.

The lawsuit, a copy of which you'll find below, contends that while Fire Island National Seashore
officials will allow seeing eye dogs to accompany beachgoers, service dogs are not allowed on the beach.

Note to self: cancel my transfer request to Fire Island National Seashore.