34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Attleboro dog park 6 votes away
Top Headlines The law would allow the creation of a park in which dogs can run unleashed to exercise and socialize. "I feel good about it," Roberta Collins said. Collins has been working toward the law for about a year. "I've done all I can do, and I'll hope for the best," she said. Collins was responding to a number of comments made by councilors Tuesday. Councilor Kim Allard said she won't support the proposal because of concerns about safety and financing. Councilors Gerald Chase and Peter Blais also expressed worries about the creation of a park. Others, such as council President Frank Cook and Councilors Brian Kirby, Bill Bergevine, Bill Bowles, Walter Thibodeau and Shannon Heagney expressed various degrees of support for the measure. Only six councilors are needed to approve it. A vote is scheduled for Tuesday. Cook, who researched and wrote much of the ordinance, said the opposition caught him by surprise. "During the earlier discussions, I don't remember much negative talk," said Cook, who strongly supports the proposal. "I think it will be good for the city," he said. His research showed the volunteers in other communities have been successful in creating and running the parks. Collins said she has fundraising ideas and says ongoing costs will be minimal once the main cost, fencing the park, is completed. She said she has encountered few problems when she has gone to similar parks. With more than 400 signatures on a petition supporting the park, Collins said she believes the community wants it as well. Collins said she and her supporters need the opportunity to prove they can do the job. "Give us a chance to succeed or fail," Collins said.
Post Your Comments Jessica Kosowski wrote on Jul 16, 2008 10:07 AM: " " Hi, I'm Jessica Kosowski, an editor at the Sun Chronicle. While your comments are always welcome here, you can continue this discussion in a permanent forum at http://thesunchronicle.ning.com/forum Just click on Attleboro once you get there. " " Jim Hawkins wrote on Jul 15, 2008 9:30 AM: " I can't help but think some of you are missing the point. This proposal is for a DOG park. If you are afraid of dogs you probably won't go there. If you are a dog person, and there's LOTS of us, you will get great pleasure from a protected area where your dog can socialize. Remember, we have a leash law so that can't happen just anywhere. My cute cocker spaniel might very well go after another dog, but my deceased Rottweiler would NEVER have. Get over the discussion of breeds. " harry hindsight wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:57 PM: " Why issue permits? One must have their dog licensed if they live in the city. That covers rabies and shows that the dog is under a vet's care. So a permit would do what? Generate revenue for a city that has given no money to the creation or upkeep of the service that the permit is to regulate. In a nutshell it is the perfect goverment program. Tax the public and not have that tax go back to the people that pay it. Hey wait, it sounds like the property taxes that go to the school system for people that have no kids! Jose21, I don't think the permit is the answer. If that money was to be spent ONLY on the dog park, then it may fly. A better idea would be like the MBTA, put in a turnstyle and collect 25 cents for each dog in the park as they enter or charge 50 cents to see the Egress when they are done! " jose21 wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:51 PM: " You do make a good point about the permits, is that typical? I think it's a great idea. " jose21 wrote on Jul 14, 2008 2:49 PM: " That information is a bit misleading. When was the last time a Jack Russell grabbed a 2 year old and tore him apart like a rag doll? As a parent, I know that if a Pitt Bull gets a hold of my child then it's pretty much over; a jack russell would end up 25 yards into the woods if it ever bit my kid. I'm not trying to say those stats don't mean anything, because obviously you want to know what dogs are aggressive, but I'd be more concerened about the onces that I know I wouldn't be able to protect my child from. " reason wrote on Jul 12, 2008 12:47 PM: " UPenn recently did a study of aggressive dogs based on dog bites. The most aggressive was a dachshund followed by chihuahua, jack russell, akita, australian cattle dog, pit bull, beagle, english springer spaniel, border collie then german shepherd. If a ban based on aggressive dogs is going to be put in place base it on real information not the breeds the media love to target. In the end it come down to how well a dog is trained and socialized. Any dog can be aggressive and some dogs have the potential to cause more harm then others. A realistic approach would be to issue permits for use of the park. Dogs exhibiting aggressive behavior (any breed) would face being banned. " annie wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:34 AM: " Id1973, Just in case you in ask or anyone else does. The reason why I wont be going to the park is because children under 12 will not be allowed in the dog park. I have 2 small children under the age of 6. " annie wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:23 AM: " Id1973, Like I said, I am all for the dog park in our city as long as tax payers dont have to pay and certain types of aggressive dogs are not allowed. I also believe that certain types of aggressive dogs such as Rotts and Pits should be banned in our city (Attleboro). Again, this is my opinion and I am entitled to express it. I respect your opinion and understand the passion that one may have for their believed dogs. I have owned dogs since I was a child but there are certain types I dont trust. I dont intend on going to the dog park but since Ive lived in Attleboro all my life I can voice my concern about it. Anyways, it is not up to me to deicide on how to handle it. I can only hope that dog ordinance that we have in place in our city will change and have tougher guidelines. I strongly believe that one should not wait for something to happen but try to prevent it from happening. It only takes one time for a human being or another dog to be seriously hurt by an aggressive dog. " ld1973 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 4:32 PM: " Annie, that woman at the shelter was stupid to have dog biscuts in her pocket. Rule number 1 is not to ever have food on the person. I've worked at many shelters and you do not ever have food on your person until you know how a dog will react. That was her fault, not the dogs fault. Certain breeds do not need to be banned, certain people do. Don't go to the dog park if you are so afraid. You are discriminating against some breeds who have a bad rep but each individual dog is unique. As Jim said, many dogs look mean but are the sweetest kindest dogs ever. Sorry to hear of your beloved dog passing Jim. " annie wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:21 PM: " Sorry guys I did a typo. I meant to say: It is not up to me. I should not be typing and working at the same time. " annie wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:18 PM: " Harry, I am all for the dog park as long as tax payers dont have to pay into it. I also feel certain breeds should not be allowed into the dog park. This is only my opinion but you cant compare dog bites to accidents. It is not the same. If an owner knows that they have an aggressive dog then it is intent. Did you hear about the woman who works at a shelter in Providence that got bite by a mixed pit-bull? She had dog biscuits in her pockets. We cant control stupid owners so I feel that they should ban certain breeds. Again it is my opinion and it is up to me to decide on how it should be handle. All I can do is voice my opinion. Like Ive said before, Why wait for something to happen when you can prevent it from happening. " Jim Hawkins wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:45 AM: " I'm just reading these comments for the first time. I think the dog park is a good idea and not very expensive. If you are afraid of dogs, don't go! I am most concerned about the discussion of breeds. My rottweiler just passed away. She was the meanest looking dog ever, but the reality was she was the most calm, gentle dog ever. Kids, elderly people, even cats loved her. If you read what has happened to Michael Vick's pitt bulls, you will find that most of them are really sweet dogs too. Limit stupid owners, but don't go after innocent dogs. " harry hindsight wrote on Jul 9, 2008 9:20 PM: " Annie, you are totally correct. My point was that the city can have many other parks and places where people can go and get hurt. One can get hurt riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, that does not mean the city should rip them all up. Give the dog park a chance. Have the users follow the rules. Things should be OK. Much as you do not hear of a child breaking a wrist at a skate park, when have we heard of someone being hurt at the dog park in Medway? One person in Foxboro, and they did not seek medical attention. Here's one to chew on. How many children are hit by pitches on baseball diamonds throughout the city each spring and summer. More I bet than have been biten at a dog park in Meday, Foxboro or Newport R.I. in the same time frame. So what is more dangerous to the youth of our city? " annie wrote on Jul 9, 2008 10:30 AM: " Harry Hindsight, that is very true that accidents can happen at public places in our cities. However, a dog bite is should not be considered an accident. If one is concerned about being bitten by a dog then one should not go to the dog park. I also feel that if an owner knows that their dog is aggressive then they should not bring there pet to the dog park. If an owner has had problems with their pet in the past then it would not be considered an accident but intent. I also read up on the Dog Ordinance in Attleboro. It states, Any dog has bitten or attacked any person or other animals or has attempted to bite or attacked is consider a vicious dog. They are exceptions to the rule that you can read for yourself. Youll find it on page 10 of Dog Ordinance. Anyways, I think now a days a lot of people carry dog insurance to cover medical cost if their dog bites someone. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jul 7, 2008 7:46 AM: " Then Dale, they should not be involed with pools, basketball courts, soccer fields, baseball fields, skateboard parks, a zoo or other public use of city land. Every place I listed have had accidents or been a place where someone ( even a child GASP!!!) has been hurt. If someone breaks a wrist at a skate park, should it be shut down or was the person doing something they should not have been doing, breaking the rules? Give the dog park a chance. Take Foxboro out of the mix, they are just kooky with this lawsuit. When was the last thing you saw in the paper about the two dog parks in Providence or the one in Medway? Probably around the same time as you read that an ankle got broken on a ball field. " Dale wrote on Jul 6, 2008 3:47 PM: " I don't think the city should be geting involved with dog parks.It takes one accident to happen for it to cost the city and any other people who may decide to fund it.I hope all finacial supporters of park are on paper so when the un expected happens they are prepared to pay again.Do you not expect any problems with inviting dogs to walk around the same place c mon. Who will take the biggest bite when somthing goes wrong! " wretched ron wrote on Jun 24, 2008 11:44 AM: " "Dog's are evil" I agree, they talk to me and tell me to do bad things. Signed - Son of Sam " mr. jones wrote on Jun 23, 2008 6:31 PM: " Dogs are evil. I hope this park never gets approved. " july_7 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:57 PM: " Harry, I did give a printout to the council in one of the many items I supplied to them. I was aware of Meday's ruls and thought it best to show it to the council as another alternative. But it still comes down to the dog ordinances and that was not why I was there. Annie, yes, this has been a great string of comments and I can assure you that I know of several councilors who DO look at these blogs and take them very seriously. Safety is always first and foremost on my mind as I love my dog to death and would not want to put him in harms way. When I go to other dog parks, I am not only watching my dog, but the other ones as well and if I get even a little nervous or question Spencer's safety, I put his leash on and leave to go back another day. I have told everyone who usually asks how to know if there is a problem. I tell them to not only watch their dog but to watch the others and to know the signs of an aggressive dog. That if in anyway they feel uncomfortable, listen to that inner voice and come back another time. But safety is a big concern for all of us who own and love our dogs. Keep up the good work!!! " annie wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:43 PM: " I think this has been a great debate. I also have learned a lot from other readers who posted comments. Thank you to all of you for educating me on your views. I was not offended by your post July_7. I understand that you are very passionate about the dog park and you feel it would be a great for the city that we live in. I respect that. However, the vote that allows an ordinance for an off leash dog park does open the door to other issues. You can say it is a wake up call for certain people who believe that a stronger dog ordinances are need for certain types of dogs (Pit Bull & Rotts). I would hope that safety would be everyones priority for dogs, children and adults. I also hope that certain City Councilors of Attleboro are paying attention to what their citizens are writing here. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 20, 2008 12:21 PM: " Most of the issues raised on this post have been put into place in Medway. Take at look at their rules: www.medwaydogpark.com. They even allow pit bulls, but they must be muzzled. It seems to work for them. " july_7 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 11:31 AM: " To all that I offended. I apologize. I went back and re-read the posts and you are absolutely correct that it's opinions and that everyone is entitled to theirs. It's also nice to see that so many really do want to be involved and make this effort safe. I like the stats that have been presented and I don't know it all or profess to. It's because of sites like this that I learn and grow and form my opinion. I applaud those of you who are willing to speak up and are willing to go the distance for what you believe. And making the council aware of your concerns cannot hurt. As I stated, I am neither for or against banning or placing restrictions on certain breeds, my concern is the same as everyone here...to have a safe place for our dogs to go and play. Please remember that what was voted on the other night was just the ordinace that allows an off leash dog park to be establised in the city. We don't have the park yet...and have many more steps before we do. And that this ordinance that was just voted on in no way has anything to do with the DOG ordinances that were already in place before I ever went before the council. Again, I do apologize if I offended anyone. Keep posting, people pay attention! " annie wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:53 AM: " It sounds like you may have misunderstood some of the comments noted below. I really did not see any name calling. You bring up a great point about voicing ones opinion to the council for which I did. I am happy to say that mailed a certified letter to them and contacted a councilor member on the board. In order to make the dog park safe we do need stronger dog ordinances in order to protect citizens and other animals that can not protect themselves from strong, aggressive and muscular dogs such as Pit Bull types and Rotts. I do believe that the dog park will need some types of rules that people will have to follow. I am trying my best to be involved because I firmly believe it starts with one person in order to help make a change. Like I stated below we are all entitled to our own opinions. As citizens we are lucky enough to voice it and everyone has a chance to hear all sides to a discussion that people may have. The dog park does bring up different issues such as safety and where it is going to be. We cant ignore it but only to present in a professional non-threatening manner. Everyday people log onto this website to read so in reality different views are presented for readers to read. What is the harm of that? " wretched ron wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:38 AM: " Who's name calling, fighting and bickering. I think this has been a good string of posts (for once). I'm all for a dog park. I just wanted to defend and share my opinion on the dangerous dog issue. That's where the conversation steered into. " july_7 wrote on Jun 20, 2008 9:30 AM: " I am reading that many of you have concerns regarding certain breeds and how safe they are. This is not a dog park issue, but a dog ordinance issue. I do know that other communities have either banned certain breeds or put a lot of restrictions on them. These are things that you as a citizen need to bring before the city council on the DOG ORDINANCES...not the dog park. Any ordinance can be ammended with proven valid concerns addressed to the council. Name calling and fighting here isn't bringing it to the attention to those who have the capabilities to listen, evaluate and revise or ammend the ordinance. That is why we have the council that we voted into office. Neither you nor I can make the rules, only help to make the current ones better. Being involved is where it starts and if you truly believe in your cause, and present it to the council in a professional non-threatening manner, they will listen. You can make a difference if you speak with your Ward councilor and those who are Council At Large. To get something done, there are certain steps that need to be taken, but fighting and bickering isn't the way to go. I am neither for not against your arguments on breeds, but don't like to see that it is being directed towards the dog park. We didn't make the rules on dogs. " annie wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:21 PM: " As far as I know NO. However, I think certain city council members are toying with idea of banning certain types of dogs. I know other cities close to us have banned certain types of dogs already. I know in the city of Pawtucket, Pit Bulls Types are banned and with regards to Rottweilers, Pawtucket does have tough restrictions. Also in other cities close to Attleboro such as Taunton Pit Bull types have been banned (I can name other cities but we are only 250 words). In all honest if I saw a Pit Bull type or Rott at Capron Park I would leave with my 2 kids. Again, it just reinforces to me that we need tougher dog ordinance on these two types of dogs. I think now that the committee has voted on the dog park they really need to think about what types of rules they want. Again, I just feel that we should not wait for something to happen when it can be prevented. It would take more then this start an argument with me. And my mind is made up and you cant change it. We are all entitled to our own opinions and we can all express it. There is no harm in that. I think the citizens of Attleboro have every right to hear all sides and make up their own minds. " harry hindsight wrote on Jun 19, 2008 7:35 PM: " At this time, are there any breeds that are banned from being owned and housed in the city? Annie, I agree with you on the two types of dogs you callout are agressive by their breeding. But, if the city currently does not feel that there should not be a restriction on the type or breed of dog that can be owned with city limits, how can it be determined that because the is now a dog park on city property, these types of dogs can no longer be here? As of today, a person can take their city licensed pit bull or rottie to Capron park and walk them there on a leash. Totally legal. How do you propose that dogs become banned if they can be on public property now. Annie, I am not trying to pick a fight or swing your feelings, I just wonder how it may be done if done at all. Again, I have 3 dogs and hope that all dogs can come to the new park when it is built and enjoy it. " annie wrote on Jun 19, 2008 6:11 PM: " Your total right, I had to go back to the CDC website and re-read what that wrote in the study. It says it's a Pit-Bull type. The City Council of Attleboro should decide on how they are going to proceed with the dog park and they should make sure that yes certain rules are followed. They should also consider the fact that according to CDC and American Veterinary Medical Associations believe that these 2 types of dogs rank the highest. Why wait for something to happen when you can help prevent it. I total agree with what you are saying in my sister in laws case and I can only hope that if the dog is not trainable that she will put it down. However, if she says its trained I still what let my 2 children near the dog. " wretched ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:57 PM: " I guess the point I'm making should be a little clearer. Pit Bull is not a breed. It's actually a mix or mutt. The actual breeds are American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. All beautiful animals and depending on how you train them, they are as safe as any other dog. How do you determine which is a Pitt or a mutt? Ban them both? My next door neighbor has a Pit /Black Lab mix. I say he's more Pit than Lab, he says the opposite. Who decides? My opinion is that the volunteers at the dog parks have a great responsibility in supervising the dogs, making sure ALL the dogs have current rabies tags and eject any aggressive dogs from the dog park if needed. It's the OWNERS responsibility when it comes to THEIR pets. Like Ceasar Milan (aka The Dog Whisperer) says, "There are no bad dogs, just bad owners". And if you've ever seen his show, he uses these giant pit's to help train these poorly trained other dogs. If a dog is aggressive to a point where they can't be trained by a professional, they should be put down. Like your sister in laws dog for example. If you think the dog will always be aggressive and can't be trained, then she is a bad owner if she keeps it. There are plenty of other non-aggressive dogs in the shelter that she can share her love with. " annie wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:20 PM: " ***Continued*** Just in reference to Pits and Rotts who have the highest rates of mauling human beings other dogs and sadly enough killing them. The city of Attleboro can certainly take prevented measures from ensuring this from happening to people & other dogs that dont stand a chance to fight off a Pit or Rott. " annie wrote on Jun 19, 2008 4:11 PM: " I am not the one who profiled these breeds of dogs. Center for Diseases and American Veterinary Medical ssociations did a 20 yr study on Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States. I am only pointing out what has been studied over a 20 yr time period. You did state earlier that you Agreed that Rotty's & Pit's are prone to be aggressive by nature. But they specifically need proper training for that type of breed. So you agree that these certain breeds of dogs are aggressive by nature. I total agree with you 100% on that. However, unlike you I feel that a lot of Pits and Rotts cant be trained. That they have very strong personality and they like to be in control. Therefore, it is my belief that they can snap. A loss of a child is a terrible thing. A parent should never have to experience the loss of a child because a Pit Bull or Rottweilers decides to use them as a rag doll. These dogs are powerful muscular creatures. Again, they have very strong personalities and are aggressive. You cant compare the loss of a child to banning these animals in our city. I total understand that a parent may not be able to stop a child from being injured by a specific breed. However, I am not talking about all breeds. " wretched ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 2:17 PM: " annie - since you're profiling bad dogs, don't forget to ban Doberman's, German Sheperds, Husky's, Chow's, Akita's and the yappy dogs that nip too like Pomeranian's, Jack Russell's, Chihuahua's, Lhasa Apso's........... " jose21 wrote on Jun 19, 2008 12:59 PM: " Harry, I'm all for the park. I'm not a dog person, nothing against them i just don't want to own one. As long as i don't hear them bark, don't have to read about dogs attacking children, and don't have to pay for it, then yes, I think it's a great idea. " annie wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:24 AM: " wretched ron, Yes, he is fine and I have already asked her to keep her Rott away from my children. I am sure her next step would be obedience school for her Rott. But, I dont think it will help. I dont see her getting rid of it because its her baby. She doesnt have children of her own. " annie wrote on Jun 19, 2008 11:21 AM: " Harry, as long I don't have to pay for it or city, it not next to my property, and Pit Bulls and Rotts are banned from the dog park & our city: I say go for it. " wretched ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:53 AM: " Love and attention does not train a dog. Treating it like one of your children certainly doesn't keep it from being aggressive. It's a dog. Agreed that Rotty's and Pit's are prone to be aggressive by nature. But they specifically need proper training for that type of breed. I have Golden's and training a Golden compared to a Pitt is totally different. That's what I mean by being a responsible pet owner. Know what breed you have and train them accordingly. "annie" I'm glad your son wasn't seriously hurt. And I hope that your sister can correct this issue with her dog as soon as possible. If it's aggressive at 7 months, she needs to do something NOW before it happens again. If she can't, she needs to get professional training or give the dog up. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:44 AM: " Annie and Jose21, let's say that Rotties and Pit Bulls are banned from the city. No longer allowed to be owned by residents. They are not allowed on city property for any reason. Banished. The dog park opens with no cost to the city. All funds are donated and all volunteers operate the park, just as is being proposed. Would you both then say the park is a good thing for the city and it's residents? " annie wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:28 AM: " My sister in law has owned 2 Rotts. Both of her dogs were trained the same way with extra TLC. The first dog died of cancer. She spent a lot of money bring it to Boston for treatment before he passed away. The new 7 month old Rott is very aggressive and snaps at everyone. A few weekends ago he went into attack mode with my son. My son was only casual walking by her dog. I dont believe it has a lot to do with the training. My sister in law treats her dogs as her children. She gives the dog lots of attention and tries to introduce her dog to people. However, her dog has a mind of its own and like I said his is aggressive. I think it has to do with luck whether or not these breeds of dog will have certain behavioral tendencies that you cant control. As a parent I have chosen not to let my children near her Rott. I have also come to the conclusion that I dont want my children near Rotts or Pitt Bulls. And yes it is my opinion they should be banned in our city. " jose21 wrote on Jun 19, 2008 10:04 AM: " You can definitely say it but that doesnt make it true. Yes, the upbringing has a lot to do with the behavior of the dog, but Pitt Bulls are known to attack out of nowhere, even ones that were given the proper love and attention. " wretched ron wrote on Jun 19, 2008 9:34 AM: " Any dog that is not trained properly is likely to bite or attack. You've got to admit (and I'm guessing here) that the high percentage of pit bulls that have mauled or bitten people came from bad up bringing such as training for fights or also from neglect. From all the pit bulls that I've seen, their owners have them for "tough guy" status on the streets and really could care less if they had a good meal or leisurely walk at least once a day. Or even proper veterinary care!! Being a parent of 2 children and owner of 2 large breed dogs, I can definately say it's all in the upbringing. And, I have read all of the posts. If this is at no cost to the tax payers, then full speed ahead. Get this park proposal approved. " annie wrote on Jun 18, 2008 5:33 PM: " Sure, Harry I do not have a problem with that. My children love dogs. Yes, I allow my kids to play with them if I trust the dog. However, I would not allow them to go near a Pit Bull. My sister in law owns a Rott. I don't trust her dog near the children. I gave the 7 month old Rott a chance. Right up until it snapped at my 2 year old son. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:16 PM: " Annie, I respect your concerns and I hope that one day my dogs can meet your daughter. I'm sure both parties will leave that day happy that we spent time together. " jose21 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 2:15 PM: " If you bring a kid that has a history of hitting, you'd watch the child closely and intervene if a situation starts to escalate. If you bring a pit bull, and the pit bull attacks someone, then it's to late, the damage is done. Even if you fight the dog off, there will still be severe damage. Also, a lot of times these dogs are fine up until their incident. Lots of times they don't show signs of being ggressive until it's too late. I wouldn't allow my kids near one of these dogs. Maybe nothing will ever happen; I wouldn't want to take the chance and put them in a situation where I can't protect them. I'll probably never get into a major car crash with my kids in the car, doesn't mean I won't strap them into their car seats. " annie wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:35 PM: " I just want to make sure that people see sides to this. Not just your side. We as American are allowed to voice our concern. I think it is important for people to know According to the Center for Diseases and American Veterinary Medical Associations about 800,000 people seek medical attention because of dog bites half our children. The rate of dog bite-related injuries is highest for children ages 5 to 9 years. A study was done by CDC on fatal dog bites lists the breeds involved in fatal attacks over 20 years with Pit-Bull type dogs and Rottweilers involved in more than half of these deaths. The study was done between 1979 to 1998 in the United States. I'm not making it up. Again, I am only making a point just like you are. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 18, 2008 1:32 PM: " I cannot guarentee that a dog will not bite another dog or a person, much less guarentee that your child will not hit another child on the playground. If your child was a hitter or one to bite, it is your responsibility as a parent to watch that child when you bring them to the play ground. Much like dog owners who bring their pet to the dog park. It is in everyone's best intrest that those that use a dog park do not have issues. If your child was a discipline problem at school, he/she would not be in a normal classroom, the same goes for learning issues. A dog that does not behave should not be put into a situation where it would disrupt other dogs. If my dog attacked a child unprovoked, for no reason, than you can bet that dog would be evaluated for temper issues and I would go on the advise of a licesensed vet. If you have a fear or an issue of harm comming to you or your child, then I suggest that you both do not go to a dog park. Much as I wouldn't go to a baseball game if I feared getting hit by a baseball. " annie wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:26 PM: " Pit Bulls has one of the highest rates for mauling people and other smaller animals. So are you saying that you can gaurantee (and stake your life on it) that if a Pitt Bull runs around in the park that it won't bite another dog or a child. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:17 PM: " Jose21, the comparison goes as far as that not all dogs are bad, not all people are bad. Just as you yourself in these blogs have been typecast as poor and on welfare, I do not pass judgement on you until we meet and I know you. Dogs, like people are the same way. Not all German shepards are guard guards, and not all beagles are Snoopy. Don't ban a breed of dog, ban the dog with the bad track record. " jose21 wrote on Jun 18, 2008 12:07 PM: " Harry - so you're comparing dogs to people? There are cities in this country that ban Pitt Bulls, last time I checked we don't ban certain types of people. The park won't last a year if you let those evil dogs in. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 18, 2008 7:37 AM: " Annie, if we use your thinking, then we should round up all spanish looking people and deport them since some may be here illeagaly. Not all dogs of one breed are dangerous, just like not all people of once culture are criminals. Judge each dog on their own merit before passing judgement. Yvette, read the string, no funding from the city! Plus there are therapy(?) dogs in hospitals so they can help the sick. Much as your child may wind up in jail and my dog quarrenteed in the pound, your child may become a teacher or doctor as my dog may be a therapy dog or a drug dog at the airport. It is all how the "parents" raise their "child". " yvette wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:14 PM: " I love my dog but I would not want a dog park. I feel the money should be spent in other places. Such as, our streets, lights, snow, hospitals and most of all our schools. I pay for private schooling for my for daughter and own a dog. However, I know that everyone's children is tomorrows future. I feel it is important to make sure that every child gets a great education. A dog can't teach in a school or practice medicine in our hospitals. We should put the tax money where it is most important "In tomorrow's furture" the children " annie wrote on Jun 17, 2008 6:33 PM: " To the editor: I do not think we need a Dog park. City tax money should be used on our schools. Also, like other parents who feel as I do, I understand the concern and desire to protect the people from the awful tragedy a dangerous Pit Bull or Rottweiler can cause. As a parent of 2 small children who cant speak for themselves, I feel that City of Attleboro should do their part to protect them against Pit Bulls and Rottweilers in our city. It is my belief that Attleboro is not doing enough to protect their small citizens who dont understand the behavioral instincts of these breeds of dogs. Back in May of 2007 a veteran Attleboro Animal Shelter volunteer was attacked by a pit bull that may have bitten her arm hard enough to break the bone. Now imagine instead of an adult that this was a small child that was attacked. The damages may have been a lot worse. If for some reason a dog park is passed, I hope that they ban Pit Bulls oand Rottweilers for entering the park. " KyraSkye wrote on Jun 17, 2008 5:45 PM: " Well said Harry. We all pay taxed to fund the schools even if we don't have children. If the funding at the PUBLIC school your child attends got cut take it up with the persons responsible for the cut. If you don't want to do that then take YOUR money and place YOUR child in a PRIVATE school that will cater to her. I choose not to have kids, and not to take advantage of the school system- I went to a private school- they aren't that bad- way better than the public schools I attended (All in CA). If I choose to spend my money for a dog park, that is my business- not yours- I am not going to pay extra so your child can get her programs back- I pay enough in taxes as it is. I am sorry- I am not a mean person- but when you start attacking a dog park in progress because your school funding got cut, it makes me wonder. I am a strong supporter of dog parks- not just for dogs but also for people. My dog goes to daycare once a week- at my own expense- I do not rely on tax payers money to educate my 'child'. The pledges of support will come, no one wants to cause a disturbance by opening something benificial to the whole community. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 17, 2008 7:58 AM: " Whoa Attle1, read the string before going off. The only thing the city is being asked to provide is land, no funding. I'm sorry the city dropped your daughter's OT, your issue is with the school committee, not the dog park. Let's look at comparables though. Your daughter is a registered student, my dogs are licensed with the city. Your taxes and my taxes fund the schools and the dog pound. Is there a fee for your daughter to attend school, I get a fine if my dog winds up at the pound. You can take your daughter to the zoo, I cannot take my dogs to the zoo. Your daughter would be welcome at the dog park. Is it fair? My burden on the city with my dogs is far less than that of your daughter. " Attle1 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:52 AM: " FYI......My child's OT at the ELC left at the end of December.....NO replacement as or yet.....oh , but wait..schools out, so who cares? My child's IEP has not been "followed through".........find another place for your dogs to go....UNTIL you show funding and make sure WE the City of Attleboro are NOT/CAN'T be sued if I bring my child to enjoy your dogs.....she loves them so much and may call then in sign language! " Attle1 wrote on Jun 17, 2008 12:41 AM: " Maybe wait till funding is down to the penny!! I have a child with special needs....this park BETTER NOT effect her needs in the school system! I, as a tax payer will not take my child there....she talks in sign language...sorry , can't keep her hands from moving!!!! " july_7 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 5:07 PM: " jose21 - Our plans are to have it where it will not interfer with a persons quality of life. We are going to try and locate it so that it's not in anyone's backyard. I am hoping that there may be some land that in an industrial zone not in any neighborhood. Believe me when I say that I am going to do everything possible to make this right and acceptable to all. " jose21 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 4:35 PM: " Best of luck with the park, just don't put it near my house! " hope2008 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:50 PM: " The cost of a dog-park is at no cost to the city. How can this be made any more clear? What is it exactly that you dont want to finance? Either you dont understand what "no cost to the city" means, or you just want to complain about something. " gingersnap wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:36 PM: " I take my dog to the one up in Foxboro, and I live in Attleboro. The one in Foxboro is always busy and there are set times it's open and there are rules and guidelines. It is run by volunteers. Unless you have a dog and you enjoy doing things w/ your dog, you probably wouldn't be supportive of a dog park. I hope they have one here in Attleboro eventually, It would save me gas money, so I won't have to drive to Foxboro anymore. " Soxfan wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:08 PM: " July 7: If you get the park passed, built and staffed without city monies, I'll bring a case to the opening and shake your hand. Good luck to you and all the supporters. If this is what each of you want to dedicate your valuable time to then I applaud your efforts. " july_7 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 2:01 PM: " I'm sorry that many think that if the ordinances passes it automatically means that the city will build a dog park. It is only a law to have on the books so that we volunteers can seek donations for fencing, materials and tools because we would now know that the city will allow a dog park to be established at no cost to the city or tax payers. The passing of the ordinance allowing a dog park in the city puts us, the volunteers on the hook to come up with the funds and labor, not the city! Maintenance will be done by volunteers, not the city or any city monies. The passing of the ordinance is only another step in a process to take us to another step. People are not going to pledge or donate to something that cannot be built because we won't have a law that will allow this type of facility. I do plan on going to Petco,PetSmart fence companies and to contact other big businesses for donations once I know that we have the OK from the city to build the dog park. Building could not and will not take place until we have all the necessary funding. Soxfan, I appreciate your offer of dog bisquits if this comes to be, but if you read the ordinances being voted on, no dog treats or foods allowed. So I'll take a case of poop bags " realist wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:48 AM: " kevin h. has a great idea. Sell the naming rights to petco or Purina. I have a dog but I don't expect my municipal government to pay for my dog's entertainment. " Soxfan wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:47 AM: " Here is my suggestion: Obtain pledges from supporters. I am not saying that money should be raised in an unethical manner and I am not being mean spirited. I applaud Ms. Collins' efforts, I just do not want to finance them. Why is it in America that as soon as anyone is not an animal supporter they are automatically against animals? I volunteered to buy the biscuits for the opening. I do not own a dog and never will; not because I hate dogs but I enjoy the freedom of not having to care for one. Again, I pose the question, what harm is there in getting pledges/ fund raising prior to the city committing to a park? If there are so many supporters, donations should not be an issue. If there are not enough supporters and cash donations have been solicited, either return them or earmark them for animal shelters or another animal friendly project. Kevin H. had a worthwhile idea to pass an ordinance allowing a dog park. The other day we learned the city is already in the red with regard to the snow removal budget. These are ugly economic times and in conversations with people who know a lot more about the city's budget issues than I ever will, there is no more fat on the bone to be trimmed. I am against anything that is not necessary at this time. " jose21 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 11:37 AM: " Who's being mean? Harry - I see your point and agree. " kevin h. wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:37 AM: " Pass the ordinance to ALLOW dog parks. Then those who want one can solicit private companies (pet stores, dog food, petco, etc.)to build or fund the creation of a park. No tax dollars. Perhaps there would be a few advertisements for the funding companies, but I doubt the dogs would mind, they might even like the shade the signs cast during the dog days of summer. " hope2008 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 10:06 AM: " There is no reason to become mean spirited with regards to the proposed dog park. Ms. Collins has worked very hard to see that this becomes a reality for all citizens of Attleboro to enjoy. She has stated very clearly that this project is of no cost to the city. This is very clear, so lets not use this "cost to the city" to put down this project. Lets stay honest. As far as holding fundraisers for the proposed park, it could be considered unethical to take money from citizens for a project that may never come to fuition. Would you donate money or goods to something that may or may not ever materialize? Of course not. This is a project that will benefit this city and many of its residents. Ms. Collins has worked her heart out and gone through all of the proper procedures to make this happen. Ask youself this: Why be mean spirites towards her? What have you done lately to see that what you think would be good for the city happens? If you have done something, do you deserve nasty retorts? If you havent done something to better our city, why not try and hope that you can get the support of your fellow citizens - not nasty letters. " harry hindsight wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:50 AM: " Soxfan and jose21, I also agree that the park should not be BUILT until funding, at whatever percentage from the public or from the city, is established. My point was to have the council vote to approve the park. Once the city says that it can be built somewhere in the city ( I'm not sure where the proposed location is.) , then those that support the park can have comfort in knowing that the money raised is going to something that is approved. Why raise money for something that may happpen, when it's better to raise moeny for a definite project. " jose21 wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:16 AM: " I agree with Soxfan. How about they raise the money for a fence and then all the dog lovers can go and put it up. I'd rather see my money go towards street lights in the center of Attleboro, rather than a park for people to walk their dogs. We're cutting back at the schools, not opening pools, etc.. but we're going to spend money to provide for a bunch of dogs? " Soxfan wrote on Jun 16, 2008 9:15 AM: " Sorry Harry....I could not disagree more. This is an issue in front of the city council: a group that is not known for fiscal restraint. If your approach is taken, my money will be spent. Notice that Ms. Collins states "...the costs will be minimal after the fencing is completed", civic speak for, you pay the big expenses and we'll trim grass and pick up after our animals. If the proponents of this are serious, they will suffer no harm by backing off for a month or two, securing their funding and then going to the council and saying, "we have the money and means to maintain the park, we have the money to pay for the fencing, can we have the City's permission"? If the funding precedes the project, I'll buy the dog biscuits for the opening ceremonies. Until then, stay out of my wallet. " Harry Hindsight wrote on Jun 16, 2008 7:28 AM: " True, funding should be a priority but let's at least vote to allow this project to proceed. If the council should vote the approval of the parkm then efforts can continue in ernest so that the idea can move to the planning phase. A dog park would be a wonderfull addition to the city, much as the white lion has brought people to visit, the dog park can be another positive thing for all to enjoy. " Soxfan wrote on Jun 16, 2008 3:28 AM: " Here is the problem that I have with the idea: money. There is no extra money right now and I do not support the city spending a single dollar for this project. The line "Collins said she has fundraising ideas and says ongoing costs will be minimal once the main cost, fencing the park, is completed. She said she has encountered few problems when she has gone to similar parks." is what I have the most trouble with. If you want the park, raise the funds first from supporters and then come back. The dog park should remain an "idea" until Ms. Collins' fundraising moves from concept to reality. " or
|
