[identity profile] smoterh.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] davis_square
It seems that my last post sparked quite a debate and 'almost' made some people cry.
Just wanted to give you an update that I received from Alderman Sean O'Donovan. 

2nd Update:
This morning a police cruiser turned onto the path where there were people with unleashed dogs. The officer didn't get out but owners put their pets on the leash.
I also received a note from the Mayor's office that they will do their best in enforcing this issue.  I hope that the Police presence on the path this morning is representative of my efforts to bring this issue to their attention.

Alderman Sean O'Donovan was pretty quick to respond to my letter.  He wrote with the following plan of action:

"I am also forwarding this to the Mayor to ask him to force the police department to doing something w/ this problem.  At the next Alderman's meeting I will submit an order that the Police Dept conduct directed patrols at the location at rush/peak hours until then we need to ask the Mayor to dispatch this request now."

Kudos to Sean O'Donovan for taking up this issue.

Date: 2009-05-21 03:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wonkywheels.livejournal.com
I missed the heated discussion on your previous post, but I just wanted to say I applaud your efforts. As a runner and cyclist, it drives me crazy when off-leash dogs run in front of me or chase me or try to jump up and lick me or what-not. People with dogs act so entitled sometimes. "Oh, he's just being friendly." Well, it scares kids (and some adults, too). Show some respect.

Date: 2009-05-21 04:21 pm (UTC)
ext_86356: (grinnybike)
From: [identity profile] qwrrty.livejournal.com
Well done!

Yay!

Date: 2009-05-21 04:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nvidia99999.livejournal.com
It's time to stop this slow slide toward caninecracy! :)

Re: Yay!

Date: 2009-05-21 05:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] geekpixie.livejournal.com
And there goes my tea. Thanks :)

Dog lover

Date: 2009-05-21 05:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] coeceo.livejournal.com
And agree with you on this.

I see dogs w/ owners walking through Davis square and its side streets w/out leashes.

Owners should petition for more off-leash parks, I'll sign it, but its not like anyone moved here with their pet and then suddenly a bunch of dog parks closed. You know the deal before hand....

Date: 2009-05-21 05:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] koshmom.livejournal.com
As a dog owner, when driving I always get WAY nervous and slow down a LOT when I see a dog on either no lead or an illegally long lead and the owner just Isn't Paying Attention to where their dog is. If I run a dog over, even a dog On A Leash, not only would I feel horrid but I can imagine the ire from the dog's irresponsible owner. And bicycles are worse, as some dogs delight in chasing/barking at/tripping up bicycles. And the irresponsible owner would think you went out of your way to run over their dog if the dog was harmed. Or they laugh with joy at your fear/cautiousness.

Date: 2009-05-21 08:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] billharnois.livejournal.com
So he's going to increase police patrolling? but he's doing nothing about the concept of putting a dog park in the area?

Dog parks cost money

Date: 2009-05-21 09:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nvidia99999.livejournal.com
Fines to owners who have unleashed dogs in illegal location bring money in. No brainer.

Date: 2009-05-21 10:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] 808.livejournal.com
I think there already is a park in the area. At least that was part of the original thread about this.

cute icon BTW

Date: 2009-05-22 12:46 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] prunesnprisms.livejournal.com
Not trying to stir this discussion back up, but the one dog park is nearly in Union Square, and if one lived in far West Somerville, near the Arlington line, it's not exactly convenient to all. This is part of the issue.

Date: 2009-05-22 02:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] davelew.livejournal.com
Right now, the only tickets handed out (of which I'm aware) are to cars or homeowners. In both cases, it's easy to trace ownership and know who to ticket, from deeds and license plates. In other words, the city doesn't give out ickets in cases where a person could say "I don't have any ID on me but my name is Inigo Montoya."

If the city starts ticketing off-leash dogowners, they'll have to find another way to verify ID. If the city does this, I would also support ticketing bike riders who run red lights, run stop signs, ride the wrong way down one-way streets, ride too fast down the Community Path, or illegally ride on the sidewalk.

Date: 2009-05-22 02:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] turil.livejournal.com
Actually, bicyclists legally have to give their real name/address/ID. Other folks don't. Somerville is behind the times in ticketing bicyclists. They don't even know how to do it. Cambridge has bike regulations on the regular vehicle violation ticket so that they don't have to remember the codes.

Date: 2009-05-22 02:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] turil.livejournal.com
Some day people will realize that there are other species on this planet, and they have a right to exist just as much as we do...

Until then, we will believe we can "own" others...

If someone takes your dog...

Date: 2009-05-22 03:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nvidia99999.livejournal.com
You would call the cops, right? Why is that? Because you are the owner of the dog. It does not mean you can torture your dog or treat your dog in a cruel way. You can get in trouble if you do.

Date: 2009-05-22 03:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] witchdogtor.livejournal.com
I walk a dog and I bike on the bike path, so I can appreciate each side of this issue. Honestly, it fascinates me that this many people are so miserable in life that they feel the need to waste their energy on such a petty matter. Life is short, people.

Date: 2009-05-22 05:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] abilouise.livejournal.com
Could there be a way to do this through dog licenses?

Date: 2009-05-22 05:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] surrealestate.livejournal.com
I believe dogs need to be licensed, so they should be identifiable by their tag, and I think if they aren't licensed, that's a whole 'nother offense.

Date: 2009-05-22 05:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] surrealestate.livejournal.com
I know, right? I was saying that just the other day to the guy I ran into with my car. Some people get worked up about the silliest things.

How about... If someone takes your husband...

Date: 2009-05-22 11:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] turil.livejournal.com
You would call the cops, right? Why is that? Because you are the owner of the husband. It does not mean you can torture your husband or treat your husband in a cruel way. You can get in trouble if you do.

Date: 2009-05-22 11:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] emcicle.livejournal.com
i'm not sure that was the point of the letter written by the OP.... maybe he is working with other people on getting more dog parks, but his response to the OP was only to what the OP asked, i.e. enforce off leash laws...
From: [identity profile] nvidia99999.livejournal.com
If I owned one or more husbands and somebody took them, I would definitely call the cops. How much does a husband go for these days? $500? Heck, that's not trivial.

Date: 2009-05-22 02:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] davelew.livejournal.com
It's only an offense if you live in Somerville and don't license your dog. It's perfectly legal for out-of-town dogs to be unlicensed and in Somerville. Since Lexington Park is about 1/4 mile from the Cambridge border, the presence of Cantabrigian canines doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me.

Date: 2009-05-22 04:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] icecreamempress.livejournal.com
That would be a good thing for the folks who feel the need for more dog parks to take up with the Aldermen, yes? That group doesn't include the original poster, whose beef was with enforcement of existing ordinances.

Date: 2009-05-22 04:13 pm (UTC)

Date: 2009-05-22 04:25 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jamiesquared.livejournal.com
The issue is that the one dog park is REALLY inconvenient to a lot of Somerville residents.

Date: 2009-05-22 04:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] purpless77.livejournal.com
It's yuppies in general who feel they're entitled, the stories I can tell. But definitely many of the dog owners.
Whether it's to peoples private property as in my friends case, or parks like this. I use the bike trail and can't understand why or when it became a dog trail. I'm tired of dodging dogs and their droppings. I love dogs but people need to gain some respect. I don't think dogs should be allowed on the bike path. I don't want to hit anybody and have nearly hurt myself dodging dogs on the trail.

Kudos to you for taking action.

Somerville is a small city, the one dog park should be enough, though I am not opposed to having other dog parks. I also feel the park is quite convenient to the majority of Somerville. If it isn't then maybe some should wait until they have their own yard to get a dog. Wait until they have enough room for a dog. Instead of getting one when they can't truly offer a dog all he/she needs. That is quite selfish. These poor dogs.

Date: 2009-05-22 05:12 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] ron_newman
Doesn't the state require all dogs to be licensed in whatever town their owner lives?

Date: 2009-05-22 05:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] davelew.livejournal.com
I didn't realize that, but I just checked and MGL chapter 140 section 137 says that every dog over 6 months needs to be licensed in it's owner's hometown. I stand corrected.

Date: 2009-05-22 05:54 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] ron_newman
petty matter

Heh.
From: [identity profile] shana-lyons.livejournal.com
I don't mean to be disrespectful or antagonistic here, but it's not officially a bike path. It's a community path, at least between Willow and Cedar, which appears to be the part we're discussing. There are small signs on either end of that section that explicitly describe it as "multi-use".

As someone who uses the path as a cyclist, walker, and dog owner, frankly, there's plenty of rudeness to go around. Bicyclists on the path go too fast (forget hitting dogs-- I worry about toddlers), dog owners let pets roam off leash (unpopular with many other dog owners-- I have no idea how friendly/unfriendly their dog is and my dog is older, slow, and leashed), and pedestrians stand and chat in clumps on the paved part instead of moving off to the side to let people pass.

In some ways, the path is kind of a victim of it's own popularity. People forget that it's neither a bike freeway nor an off leash park. There's so little green space near us that any that we have is heavily used. The community path is both green and useful and proximate to a park for kids, which makes it triply busy. Maybe the short term solution is simply everyone being a bit more accommodating. Longer term, I think a dog park is a great idea, either to the side of the path or perhaps elsewhere in the Davis area.

Date: 2009-05-22 10:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] squonk.livejournal.com
My life will be especially short when an off-leash dog distracts my guide dog from her work, causing me to get hit by a bicyclist or (off the path) a car.

Many, many thanks to the OP. I'll be putting in a letter of support as well.
From: [personal profile] ron_newman
The entire path is multi-use, including the part west from Davis Square towards Alewife, and also the new short section between Woodbine and Central streets.

For that matter, the same applies to the Minuteman path from Alewife up through Arlington and Lexington to Bedford.
From: [identity profile] nvidia99999.livejournal.com
Good point. As much as I hate dogs without a leash, I also hate bikers zipping by, thinking that pedestrians have no business walking there.

Date: 2009-05-26 09:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] buckturgidsen.livejournal.com
purpless77:
"maybe some should wait until they have their own yard to get a dog. Wait until they have enough room for a dog. Instead of getting one when they can't truly offer a dog all he/she needs. That is quite selfish. These poor dogs."

You're rushing to judgment here. You have no idea how or why people came to own their dogs. Lots of things can change in the life of the dog owner over the 10+ years of their dog's life: people change jobs, have kids, move (sometimes without a lot of choice), get sick, die, etc. Giving up an adult dog means putting it in a shelter where it will likely be euthanized, so as circumstances of peoples' lives change they may have to choose between owning a dog under less-than-optimal conditions vs the sad thought of putting the dog down. And yes, sometimes people even make mistakes and are forced to live with the consequences. So while I agree that prospective dog owners should think carefully through the decision and consider space, exercise, and community resources (or lack thereof) for dogs, I don't think it's our place to second-guess why someone owns a dog or call them selfish for doing so.

Profile

davis_square: (Default)
The Davis Square Community

January 2026

S M T W T F S
    123
456 78 910
11121314151617
181920212223 24
25262728293031

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 26th, 2026 05:55 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios