My wife and I are in Malibu visiting our daughter and family, and while reading the Malibu News [sic] this morning I was surprised to find that Ms. Linn felt that responsibility for a fatal dog attack was a tough call. Really?

The article provided some interesting insights into dog breeding and training, but I was startled when the author concluded the article by asking “…can stupidity be prosecuted when it costs a life? That’s really a tough call.” I find it hard to believe there is any question about whether or not the owner of a dog that commits a vicious and fatal attack would not be held responsible for his or her pet’s action.

When a driver commits the stupid act of running a red light and causes a fatal accident, the driver is held accountable for that act. A stupid action? Yes. A tough call for responsibility? No. What is so different about expecting the owner of a vicious dog to accept responsibility for a fatal attack?

If responsibility for such a terrible incident is allowed to disappear in a sea of irrelevant questions, then no one can be held directly accountable for irresponsible and dangerous behavior. Is assessing responsibility for this attack a tough call? I think not.

Daniel S. Oborn

Mesa, AZ

I found your story about “bad dogs” in the Feb. 8 issue misleading and irresponsible in that you had a veterinarian, not a certified dog trainer, giving his opinion that first time dog owners and families with children should not have Rottweilers, German shepherds, or chows as pets. Although he paid lip service to the idea that all dogs should be socialized and responsibly trained, the overall message to people who may have concerns about dogs after hearing the horrible story out of San Francisco is to fear those particular dog breeds.

I am a first time dog owner who owns two dogs — a Rottweiler and a German shepherd (both mixed breeds) — both of whom I rescued from the SPCA. They are, as any basic dog breed book will attest, smart, highly trainable, and extremely loyal dogs. They are not, as your story implies, more of a danger or nuisance than any other dog when they are not properly trained. Both dogs (still puppies) love children, and have been incredibly responsive to their training.

While your buried message seemed to be to encourage dog owners to take all steps to train their dogs so that they will not exhibit territorial or aggressive behavior, the message that your story leaves us with is that some dogs are just dangerous. The effect will be that you will discourage people from adopting certain kinds of dogs when there is such a great need to find loving homes for the overwhelming number of dogs in city shelters, and/or you will needlessly make neighbors fearful of the Rottweilers and German shepherds in their communities.

Rather than jumping on the sensationalist bandwagon after the San Francisco incident, you should have done what you purported to do — provide reliable information to those who may have concerns arising out of the attack in San Francisco.

Michelle Alvarez

O.K., you’ve scrimped and saved and bought your dream house in Malibu, but one day you wake up and realize the next $5,000 house payment is going to be tough to meet.

Solution?

Rent your house as a location set to the film and television industry.

Depending on a production company’s budget, and the time it’ll need a home for, you could possibly make that mortgage payment for the next three months at least.

To get on that favored list that production companies turn to in time of need, Malibu Locations Etc., Inc. is the place to go. Operated for more than 13 years by Malibuite Diane Klein, Malibu Locations has more than 1,000 of its 4,000 listings for shooting locations right here in Malibu. Other locations listed in the company’s directory range from close to Agoura all the way down toward the Palisades.

Some homes are rented for as short a time as one hour, others for weeks at a time. Rates vary from $1,000 on up to $35,000 a day. If a homeowner lucks out, a house could be rented out for a series that lasts years and years, and the production company will have to keep coming back to shoot new footage year after year.

Klein, true to Hollywood tradition, fell into her corner of show business by accident. “I was a housewife living in Malibu when a location scout came to my door asking if we would like to rent our home for a TV show called ‘Stingray,’ ” she explains.

Klein agreed, and the rest is history. She started a business to put Malibu’s homes on the film market as locations and now has four employees at work at her Point Dume office on Pacific Coast Highway, across from Zuma Beach.

“Not every home is suited for filming,” says Klein, “though we have a wide variety — from Wild West type log homes to ultra modern.”

Similar to film commissions in many states, Malibu Locations offers a wide variety of look-alike settings so that Malibu can double for New England, with Cape Code houses; Arizona, with rocks and sagebrush; or even Italy or Greece, with hilltop marbled mansions overlooking the sea.

The way the business works is simple: A location scout working for a photographer, movie director or producer calls Malibu Locations and describes what they are looking for. Klein then has her staffers pour through their 4,000 locations to see if they have anything that fits. Photos are then e-mailed or Fed-Exed to the potential clients and an offer made. If the homeowner accepts, the contracts are signed.

Inevitably, the contract includes a provision to “return the house back to its original state,” which could include repainting, carpet cleaning, etc.

“Sometimes,” says Klein, “the film company needs a wall to be a different color. They can repaint it, doing a professional job, and if the homeowner decides they like the new color, it is not repainted.”

However, “rarely is that done,” says Klein. “Though, we frequently have the vegetation altered, with plants added or subtracted.”

The owner does not have to worry about permits — the film company gets those from the city. All the homeowner does is sign the contract with the film company and the film company handles the paperwork. Liability insurance is also obtained, with policies over a million dollars covering all potential exigencies.

Since parking is a at a premium in Malibu, and movie companies require trucks to haul cameras, tracks and cranes, off-site parking locations are sometimes set up to transfer talent and workers to and from the actual shooting location.

Besides parking, another problem peculiar to Malibu is bathrooms, or lack of them. Since a feature film crew could easily number 60 people and most homes in Malibu use septic tanks, the demand on bathrooms could easily exceed capabilities, so porta-potties are brought in.

Klein knows the location-rental business from both ends — her own two homes in Malibu are listed in her data base as well as the home of her daughter and all are and frequently rented. One of them, her home on Broad Beach Road, was used so much for the television show “Diagnosis Murder” that the film company went to the trouble to build a duplicate of the main room on the production lot set. Other TV shows that have used Malibu locations found by Klein are: “Baywatch,” “V.I.P.” “Columbo” specials, and a feature called, “Are You Talking to Me?”

Occasionally, a filmmaker will find a stretch of Malibu land that is the perfect setting, except that the ideal home for the movie doesn’t exist there. “In that case,” says Klein, “they build it.”

She cited a recent movie with Robert Redford and Demi Moore where an actual house was built on the beach, though it was not structurally built well enough, or to code, to be allowed to exist as a house after the filming, and was torn down when filming was completed.

A downside to the riches gained from renting out a home? A whole family can be displaced for the duration of the film shoot.

“They go to hotels, condos, friends’ homes, whatever they can work out with their allotment,” says Klein, of options that homeowners have for temporary living quarters. “Sometimes they have children or animals to move as well, and it all has to be worked out.”

The usual “lead time” from when a home is signed for and filming starts is one week, though sometimes for a still photo shoot, it’s as little as one day.

Klein has a few “won’t dos,” and one of them is renting to X-rated movie producers, though her staff all said that Playboy is acceptable as far as still photography.

For interviews of celebrities, Malibu homes are sometimes rented as a backdrop. “Sometimes celebrities don’t want the pictures to be shot in their own homes,” said one Malibu Location employee. “They want to preserve their privacy, so they rent a nearby home to double as their home.”

Terrie Stone, a resident in the Las Tunas Canyon area, says that she has listed her home with Malibu Locations for five years, including to a Japanese music video producer and for a backdrop for clothing catalog models, and has been happy with the way it worked out each time.

“They left the house better than the way they found it,” she says.

In most cases, she was able to re-occupy her home the same evening as filming, the rentals being jobs that could be shot in one day.

David Percelay, a local producer whose ultra-modern ocean view home is on a hill near Paradise Cove, has rented his home several times for filming.

“I always take out the irreplaceable things first and put them into storage,” he says. “But I have full confidence in Diane’s company because they are local Malibu residents, and know our concerns. There are companies in Hollywood or the Valley I wouldn’t work with.”

Being in the film industry himself, he realizes the availability of rentals is vital: “My business wouldn’t be able to work if we weren’t able to rent homes,” he says.

I have always read the letters to the editor with interest. It is enlightening to have a forum, where Malibuites can freely discuss problems of the community, without their speech edited. Judging from my own experience, that is exactly how the letters are presented — in their entirety and in their original form. The only indication of the editor’s opinion is the title under which a given letter is published. The editor reserves the right to attach the most informative, concise and appropriate title. It may coincide with the overall tone of a letter, thus making it more profound. Or, just the opposite — an intentionally chosen title can render a letter totally useless. Since it is always printed first, and in larger bolder letters, the title defines the first impression.

I do respect this editor for his talent and courage as a journalist. However, I have found it difficult to guess Mr. York’s opinion about two letters, discussing violations of L.A. County beach regulations by dog owners.

In the first case, dated June 1997, I wrote a letter about a dog drinking water from a Zuma Beach water fountain. Despite my protest, the owner allowed the large dog to put his dirty paws directly on the fountain, and to lick the faucet, while salivating profusely. It was a quite repulsive picture. Writing the letter, my intention was to point attention to the health hazard, created on the beach by an irresponsible dog owner and to prevent people from using potentially contaminated water fountains. To my not so pleasant surprise, the letter was published under the title “Buy Your Dog a Snapple,” thus making it sound funny instead of concerned about a health safety issue.

In the second case, after a human life was lost in a dog attack, Mr. Sam Birenbaum wrote a letter, discussing different aspects of the dog problem on our beaches. His letter was published under the title “Bitching About Dogs on the Beach.” I am sure that Mr. Birenbaum does not agree with such a picturesque motto. As a citizen and as an attorney, his only intention was to stress the need for proper enforcement of regulations, that have already been in place for years.

Perhaps Mr. York wanted to put a little humorous twist to the both stories. Or, maybe he was too careful not to displease the numerous dog owners among the Times’ readership.

One way or another, the bottom line is: Dogs are not allowed on L.A. County beaches.

The existing regulations have to be strictly followed, because they are in place for a number of health and safety reasons. How many more times health standards have to be violated? How much more cleanliness can be compromised? Can we allow one more life to be lost? County beaches are intended for human use only. If everybody brings to the beach their dog, their cat, their horse, their snake, their ferret, their camel, their pet cougar, their whatever — then the beach will turn into a zoo, and maybe we, the two-legged, should be put in cages(for our own safety), while “they” roam around.

Ian Popov

I have read last week’s editorial about property owners willing to sell their Civic Center property. It is likely that you have accurately reported what you heard from the city, but I would like to put these matters in context to avoid unrealistic expectations. These comments are solely from the perspective of Wave Property, Inc., though I expect some are shared by Mr. Yamaguchi.

Over the past several years that WPI has owned these properties, we have been asked numerous times if our land is for sale. Our response has consistently been multi-faceted, as follows: First, we have indicated our agreement with and encouragement of the efforts toward raising public money to acquire land for community needs. That is a much superior way to meet community needs than to acquire property through political power. How much more attractive would our coastline be if the state and county had had the foresight to buy ocean frontage decades ago? We still have the opportunity to make limited acquisitions in our community.

Second, we have always responded that, for a price that is fair and reflective of our costs, we would be willing to sell the property. We have made it abundantly clear, however, that we are not interested in entering into any negotiations which commit WPI to sell the property at appraised value after taking into consideration the extensive downzoning and limitations imposed on the properties in recent years. Nonetheless, if WPI were offered a high enough price, it would get our attention.

Third, we have responded that we believe there are other properties which are better suited to the city’s needs and on which it should concentrate its acquisition efforts. However, we recognize that this is a matter of judgment on which reasonable people might disagree.

Fourth, we are most desirous of constructing a community-serving senior housing project on our properties. There are numerous local benefits which would result, including providing a place for seniors to live conveniently, safely, with essential services, and less expensively in the community they have loved and served; providing housing for parents of our local citizens; providing a senior recreation and social center at little or no cost to the community; providing and/or participating in the creation of a state-of-the-art medical center for Malibu; and doing all of this at less impact on the environment, traffic, wastewater, etc. than would be the case with other uses currently allowed under the General Plan. Thus, does it make sense for this project to be sacrificed for the community land needs, or should the City be seeking the replacement of a higher impact project?

Regarding the editorial and the more extensive news article in the other local paper, it is inaccurate for anyone to state or imply that this landowner has “offered” to sell any land to the city or other agency. I have not heard or read the mayor’s report, but would be surprised and disappointed if he characterized our discussions in that fashion. All of the discussions regarding sale of land have been initiated by the City, and at no time have we made an offer or proposal to the city.

I hope the community will let its voice be heard on the thoughts expressed above. It would be our privilege to meet with any community groups who might like to be better informed about what we propose to build on our properties. Our goal is to provide a facility that will be a blessing and a service to this community now and for the foreseeable future.

Thanks for listening.

Mike E. O’Neal, President

Wave Property, Inc.

Your recent article on the “trails conflict” between private property owners and horse people brought to mind several points. Before proceeding, I will mention that I am a horse owner, and I do keep some of my horses at my home in the Santa Monica Mountains. The area where I live is one of those where the motorways (fire roads) go through private property, and where equestrians, mountain bikers and hikers have, for recreational purposes, used these roads, as well as having created “off-road” trails. As pointed out in your article, property owners are starting to crack down on this use, although the reason stated is that people who are doing this are “not horse people.”

I think one of the reasons is that the inconsiderate minority of these recreational users, have, in large part, ruined it for everyone. I have been at the receiving end of this sort of behavior. People have felt it is okay to ride into my gated and fenced riding arena, which I now keep padlocked. I have had mountain bikers fly by and scare my horse — on my own property. Unleashed dogs accompanying hikers have chased my cats. A number of hikers and equestrians seem to think that they can just go anywhere on one’s property “to look at the view.” Likewise, I am aware of people who are busily creating trails across private property, regardless of the damage caused by the erosion of these trails, since, unlike the trails built by the conservancy, they are just hacked into the slopes. Unfortunately, the considerate users suffer as a consequence.

But a far more important reason, I believe, lying behind the blocking of private land, is the liability issue. Many states have statutes limiting liability for horse related injuries occuring on ones property. California is not one of them. It would not be an unknown phenomenon for someone to fall off their horse while trespassing on your land, and then sue you. Unfortunately, the risk of litigation outweighs the benefits of being nice.

Annette Peterfy

I agree with Dean Graulich, dogs do not intend to behave “badly” toward people. They go by instinct, experience and what comes naturally to being a dog. (I have three terriers — quite a handful). You did reference two things which you should be made aware of though. One was that you have seen dogs in the back of open pick-up trucks (would they be friendly).

What the public should be made aware of is that it is against the law and highly dangerous to transport dogs in the back of an open vehicle unless they are cross harnessed. Against the law to do so!

(Vehicle Code 23117 entitled “Transportation of animals: enclosure or restraint requirements:” “No person driving a motor vehicle shall transport any animal in the back of a vehicle in a space intended for any load on the vehicle … unless the space is enclosed … (or) the vehicle has installed means of preventing the animal from being discharged, or the animal is cross tethered to the vehicle, or is protected by a secured container or cage, in a manner which will prevent the animal from being thrown, falling or jumping from the vehicle.”)

Anyone seeing a dog in the back of an open vehicle at risk should immediately call the police. Among other penalties, the vehicle may be immediately impounded by the police. Seat belts are the law, so is this vehicle code. You should let your readers know about that.

The second point I wanted to mention to you was when you said there was someone who routinely walked six large dogs off leash on a beach. The law states that a household may only have three dogs. So that would easily have been a case where the Deptartment of Animal Control could have stepped in on the public’s concerns.

Thanks for the article. Call me with any questions, or touch base with Animal Control.

A. Spencer

Malibu veterinarian Dean Graulich “approves of a dog being taken to the beach where permitted.” In fact, they are not permitted anywhere on the beach in Malibu or Los Angeles County: ” A person shall not bring or maintain on any beach a dog or cat.” Title 17.12.280. That includes “private” beaches like Malibu Road, Broad Beach, Colony, Point Dume, Cove Colony, Paradise Cove, Carbon, both below and above mean high tide line.

He goes on to say that he thinks dogs should be allowed to run up and down the beach providing they are under the control of their owners (after citing his own ‘alarming’ example of the man who walked Rottweilers on the beach without a leash). If the dog is not on a leash, it cannot be controlled (and even then, sometimes not). If a dog is anywhere on the beach, even if on a leash (except tied up on one’s own property), it is illegal and subjects the owner to stiff criminal citation and fines, as it should.

Unfortunately, each day there are hundreds of dogs “walked” (actually let loose) on the beaches in Malibu leaving tons of poop and gallons of pee because their owners find the beach a convenient place for their dogs to use as a toilet. They let the tide (if it gets high enough) clean up the beach, adding to the high fecal count as confirmed by Heal the Bay and other ocean water monitoring groups.

They allow barefooted beachgoers and children playing in the sand to ‘encounter’ their dog’s leftovers, sometimes kicking sand over feces to “bury” it (sort of). They endanger others because of dogs’ inherent distrust of strangers as demonstrated when the dogs get into conflicts, or by just plain galloping past or jumping up on those sitting or children playing in the sand. They disregard the birds, seals and other shoreline creatures that flee with fright from the running, chasing, attacking canines. The owners ignore the disturbance of the peace by the loud persistent barking of the dogs or by obedience-beseeching, name-shouting from their owners (Fido! Fido! FIDO!!!). They trespass on public and private property and are a destructive disgrace to the natural shoreline habitat and environment that is so precious and that should be protected and preserved for enjoyment of all citizens, even the native species, not just dogs and their owners.

Why can’t dog owners find some other place for their dogs to dump and walk, like their own properties, or some other designated area, or even the side of a road, not the beach?

Is it because they will then have to pick up their poop and keep them on a leash? In other words, dog owners should take the responsibility for their choice to own an animal, as opposed to letting it loose to disrespect the law, nature and the rights of other citizens.

When someone confronts or protests, the dog owner invariably blames the protester for being “uptight” or “intolerant” or, so sadly and sickly as in the recent San Francisco dog attack death, blame the dead victim as if it was her fault for causing the poor dogs to kill.

Who let the dogs out? Woof! Woof! Who let the dog out? Poop! Poop! Bad owners, that’s who.

Sam Birenbaum