Our City Online

Civics / Politics

Leash Laws and Dog Waste Legislation Revisited

Walker Evans Walker Evans
Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

Columbus City Council is revisiting Leash and Dog Waste Legislation this summer. Councilmember Priscilla Tyson is spearheading the efforts originally worked on by former Councilmember Kevin Boyce over the past 5 years.

The first reading of these new laws is scheduled to take place on May 18th and will be up for a vote on June 1st. If you’d like to contact Councilmember Tyson about this proposed legislation, she can be reached via email here or via phone at 645-2933.

Print Friendly

Tags:

64 Responses to Leash Laws and Dog Waste Legislation Revisited

  1. KyleEzell
    KyleEzell April 27, 2009 1:45 pm at 1:45 pm

    Who’s going to be the dog poop police?  “Citizen’s arrest! Citizen’s arrest!”  ?

  2. somertimeoh
    somertimeoh April 27, 2009 2:00 pm at 2:00 pm

    Oh no, Core’s head is going to explode.

  3. lifeliberty
    lifeliberty April 27, 2009 2:17 pm at 2:17 pm

    the first one is not necessary, just use the existing laws on the books. 

    law 2 is ok, not great.  part B needs to be removed.

    “(B) It shall be unlawful for any person to walk a dog on public property of this City or upon the private property of another without carrying at all times a suitable container or other suitable instrument for the removal and disposal of dog feces.”

    why make people carry stuff if their dog doesn’t go?

    I understand that I need to clean up if my dog goes, but why have a law telling me I have carry bags or containers?

    some politicians just want their names on the books, these laws SUCK!

    but anyways, I always walk my dogs on leash and bring bags and clean up after my dogs.  so the law isn’t going to make me do anything I’m not already doing, I just think putting these laws on the books is a waste of taxpayer money.  I would love to see police writing tickets for off leash dogs while stuff is getting stolen out of my back yard and my neighbor across the street keeps peddling his drugs.  Love the priorities Columbus!

  4. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 27, 2009 2:18 pm at 2:18 pm

    Why am I not surprised that Boyce’s lackey, Mark Young, didn’t hold to his word about the creation of 3 off leash parks prior to this legislation even being discussed?

    Regardless, troops are being mobilized.  Hope the sponsors of this are ready for a war.

  5. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 27, 2009 2:25 pm at 2:25 pm

    p.s. Just for the record, I don’t care if they pass a law fining people 25,000.00 for not picking up after their dogs OR people who don’t keep their dogs under control to the point of annoyance or danger to others.

    This isn’t that.

  6. joev
    joev April 27, 2009 2:30 pm at 2:30 pm

    Good luck with your next election, Priscilla Tyson!

    I’d like the councilwoman to document all cases in the past four years in which off-leash dogs have been public safety/health hazards, mark them on a map. If this is passed, enforcement should be in the high-incident neighborhoods only.

  7. lifeliberty
    lifeliberty April 27, 2009 2:34 pm at 2:34 pm

    I’ll bet this coincides with the two wolf hybids killing the little dog on the West side. She’s trying to time it right for sympathy. but as you’ll notice, the guy was already in violation of laws on the books.
    http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/04/24/WELLEN.ART_ART_04-24-09_B3_PRDLDB8.html

  8. bob.os April 27, 2009 2:34 pm at 2:34 pm

    Joev, does that include having a group of 7-8 yr old kids threatened by dog owners for practicing soccer in a park?  If so, I can document that.  The people at Clinton-Como told us that we were there illegally and that it was the “dog park” if you can believe that.  This was four years ago!

    Core, the problem is defining “under control to the point of annoyance or danger to others.”

    As a dog owner, park user and parent, it is about damn time this got done.

  9. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 27, 2009 2:36 pm at 2:36 pm

    Actually, it isn’t a problem at all bob.  As far as what a few dog owners said to you 4 years ago, it really has nothing to do with this.  I’m not surprised there are asses who own dogs any more than I wasn’t suprised asses own roller blades, bikes, picnic equipment, or any other group who uses the parks.

  10. joev
    joev April 27, 2009 2:38 pm at 2:38 pm

    bob.os – I don’t think that would be an instance of off-leash dogs being a public safety/health hazard. That is a personality issue with the dog owners, and should have been dealt with as such.

  11. lifeliberty
    lifeliberty April 27, 2009 2:39 pm at 2:39 pm

    ‘threatened by dog owners’ is completely different than ‘threatening dogs’

  12. JonMyers April 27, 2009 2:51 pm at 2:51 pm

    I propose an ordinance that polices humans defecating on the sidewalks as well.

  13. dagr8tim April 27, 2009 2:51 pm at 2:51 pm

    Come on, the city of Columbus is broke.  This is a way to drum up tickets.  With Part B they can ticket you for not carrying a bag & a scooper.

    Does anyone not think a large portion of this is revenue generation?

  14. lifeliberty
    lifeliberty April 27, 2009 2:57 pm at 2:57 pm

    so if you were walking your dog, the police would be allowed to detain and search you for bags?

    because technically a suitable instrument for removing feces “could”(not recommended) be your bare hands.

  15. joev
    joev April 27, 2009 2:59 pm at 2:59 pm

    $25 fines don’t sound like a revenue generator to me. Especially since this adds more enforcement duties. It seems like a way for certain politicians to stick it to dog owners.

  16. SJT
    SJT April 27, 2009 3:03 pm at 3:03 pm

    I do know of at least 3 incidents that happened within the last 2 months where an unleashed dog attacked either a person or another dog so maybe there is an increase in crappy dog owners who don’t train their dogs. Sad that it would have to come to this, but I understand why I guess. Some people don’t realize the responsiblity that is needed to care for a dog it seems – they just think they are “cute” and have to have one :(

  17. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 27, 2009 3:04 pm at 3:04 pm

    this is a political favor being returned to Boyce from Tyson if I had to guess.  What Tyson may be overlooking is what a poison pill it is.  For every person who thinks a leash law is a good idea, they aren’t passionate enough about it to hit a polling station and check her name for it.

    I can guarantee that the people like me will absolutely be there checking her opponent’s name though.

  18. lifeliberty
    lifeliberty April 27, 2009 3:06 pm at 3:06 pm

    that’s probably why Boyce avoided it/postponed it until he was out.

  19. lifeliberty
    lifeliberty April 27, 2009 3:07 pm at 3:07 pm

    And SJT, there is already a law that governs unleashed dogs attacking people or animals.

  20. joev
    joev April 27, 2009 3:10 pm at 3:10 pm

    I think a new law on the books for offleash dogs is going to change as much behavior as jaywalking laws have changed for High Street just south of City Center.

  21. lifeliberty
    lifeliberty April 27, 2009 3:15 pm at 3:15 pm

    well, I do see people get stopped crossing the street there, and you don’t see it happening much when cops are posted there.  and I know of at least one cop that would be ticketing dog owners if the law was on the books, he used to drive his car across goodale.  that was years ago though, I haven’t been there for a while.  but I’m sure if he’s gone there is some other prick that will take his place.

    and the law would also give excuse to check rabies and lisencing info. in one fashion it would be good because there are plenty of bad owners(who are in violation of the laws already existing, yet not enforced), but i think this law would really be penalizing the good owners.

  22. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 27, 2009 3:18 pm at 3:18 pm

    Well, the cops will be busy with other tasks as the crime rates in and around both Goodale and Schiller soar with the dogs gone.

  23. thepiece April 27, 2009 3:24 pm at 3:24 pm

    Does anyone think about the big picture implications of this? Take the dog people out of parks like Schiller/Goodale and other places and the parks are pretty empty (especially outside of weekends in the summer/spring). So, i guess we would rather our parks and public spaces be left unused and would prefer us all driving our dogs out of town to dog parks.  

    So, when I get mugged in Schiller park this winter because all the dog owners
    who normally run their dogs there are gone (and no one else is around) I can thank City Council.

    I guess it doens’t matter really, since there is no one to enforce it anyway. I’ll take my chances on a ticket.

  24. thepiece April 27, 2009 3:28 pm at 3:28 pm

    …also I see they took the time to put a homing pigeon provision in the ordinance. So, this is what council is working on instead of dealing with the budget crisis?

  25. joev
    joev April 27, 2009 3:31 pm at 3:31 pm

    @ thepiece, this is what Priscilla Tyson does with her time. Don’t know about the others. What a joke of a coucilwoman, not just for this – but also for that nonsense she picked up when her chosen candidates weren’t chosen as council replacements.

  26. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 27, 2009 3:36 pm at 3:36 pm

    she’s up for re-election in November.  I don’t foresee it going well.

  27. joev
    joev April 27, 2009 3:38 pm at 3:38 pm

    Maybe we can get a council member that was elected rather than appointed! And reconsider rid of those completely stupid “unofficial” racial quotas that council likes to propegate with its appointments.

  28. Walker Evans
    Walker April 27, 2009 3:39 pm at 3:39 pm

    Coremodels says: Regardless, troops are being mobilized.  Hope the sponsors of this are ready for a war.

    I heard that there’s already a Facebook group. ;)

  29. HeySquare
    HeySquare April 27, 2009 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm

    Doesn’t anyone watch the Dog Whisperer? Dogs that don’t get exercise are far more prone to violence and aggression.

    The most recent dog attack, the one getting coverage in the Dispatch with the two alleged wolf-hybrid dogs, was from a fenced yard, from what was reported in the Dispatch.

  30. Columbusite April 27, 2009 5:33 pm at 5:33 pm

    Cyclists are being threatened, injured, and killed by idiotic people who shouldn’t be driving around this city yet a dog jumping on your leg and stepping in poo is a more pressing matter. Guess it’s up to us to do something.

  31. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 27, 2009 5:53 pm at 5:53 pm

    BTW, maybe Tyson should remember her own words:

    “Councilwoman Priscilla R. Tyson, who chairs council’s recreation and parks committee, said a law requiring dog owners to keep their pets on leashes is likely when dog parks have been established on all sides of town.”

    I don’t think a park at Livingston & Noe Bixby, a park within a park at Three Creek,on the OTHER SIDE of 270 in Groveport…and the park within a park at Wheeler, really qualify.

    http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2008/06/city_council_revives_leashlaw_1.shtml

  32. Columbusite April 27, 2009 8:24 pm at 8:24 pm

    The one off of Livingston looks like the best bet. It’s just a fifteen minute drive away, or everyone can get crammed into the one on Spring Downtown. I don’t see that placating anyone.

  33. Matthew
    Matthew April 28, 2009 9:25 am at 9:25 am

    Where are the priorities at here?  I’m tired of random gunshots in city neighborhoods, people stealing shit from backyards,  cars being ransacked, neighbors playing boom boom music, arsons and the police who act like people are pestering them.  Why can’t the city board up the house 2 streets over that has been torched 8 times now?  Little kids play in that house.  I walked through it yesterday, it should be torn down before someone dies.  The hell with dog poop!

    IMO this is as ridiculous as the notion of policing bathrooms to catch urine drinkers.  Aka creating a new set of laws to prosecute a single individual.

  34. lazyfish
    lazyfish April 28, 2009 11:08 am at 11:08 am

    Documentation….sure 2 off leash dogs in Iuka on Friday attack, maul, and bloody a golden retreiver and a rat terrier, when 911 was called the response was that the police don’t take dog complaints…..

    Go to Goodale on anyday and walk the gauntlet of dogs and dogowners blocking the sidewalks. It has gotten so bad that many folks now avoid walking into the park because of the rudeness of the dog owners. I witness daily people who allow their dogs to run in the flowerbeds, refuse to pay attention to their dogs behavior, bowel movements. As far as I am concerned the dog walkers are takers who have given nothing to improve the park.

    Core your threat to defeat elected officials has as much impact as the threats the pro-smoking lobby made when the smoking ban was passed…btw who was the last council member not re-elected?

    Face it, this is simple progressive legislation, most cities have leash laws. If the dog walkers are offended they have no one to blame but themselves.

  35. joev
    joev April 28, 2009 11:24 am at 11:24 am

    @lazyfish – before a leash law is debated, there should be data to debate. The police should start tracking these issues. I’m not going to support a law based on hearsay. I’m not doubting that this happened – I’m just appaled that Priscilla Tyson doesn’t have any data to work from on this issue.

  36. lazyfish
    lazyfish April 28, 2009 11:31 am at 11:31 am

    maybe you should read some of the available data yourself…..the health department tracks dog bites and the # 1 complaint to Rec and Parks is off leash and threatening dogs, don’t try and hide behind your own ignorance of the true impact of the issue.

  37. NerosNeptune April 28, 2009 12:02 pm at 12:02 pm

    Since Goodale Park was brought up: why does everyone with a dog stand in that one same area? I hate going through there when I’ve got food from North Market with me,, walking through such a dense area of unleashed dogs. Not to mention there is no grass there and the whole thing just looks like crap. Does the park encourage dog owners to all stand in that little area? I would think it would be better to spread them out.

    As far as these laws.. My family has had multiple cats mauled and killed by loose dogs. I would fully support any laws requiring people to keep their dogs under control. I’m not sure I understand the backlash against this proposal. If you have a dog, how hard is it to put a leash on it when you take it for a walk? I have never seen so many people with loose dogs in a populated area before I moved to Columbus.

  38. lazyfish
    lazyfish April 28, 2009 12:28 pm at 12:28 pm

    Friends of Goodale Park, Rec and Parks and DogPaw (dogs of goodale park are welcome) all encourage  the dog walkers to NOT stand in the middle of the walkways, they have been asked to comply with this very simple request repeatedly….they fact that they don’t, speaks volumes to their poor upbringing, rude disregard for others, and generally narcisisstic self absorption.

  39. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 28, 2009 12:34 pm at 12:34 pm

    The fact is, the “threatening dog” reports are usually “a dog barked at me”, I’ve seen them.  They also tend to be multiple reports from the same person over and over.  The dog bites are NOT at parks by and large, a tiny percentage is.  Most are in private yards, many on leashes.

    BTW, if you’re worried about clear walkways, the very last thing you should want is everyone to have their dogs on a leash.  Where exactly do you think they, their dogs, and the length of rope stretched between the two will be?

  40. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 28, 2009 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm

    “why does everyone with a dog stand in that one same area? I hate going through there when I’ve got food from North Market with me,, walking through such a dense area of unleashed dogs.”

    So wait…let me get this straight.  All the unleashed dogs are concentrated in a single, tight area in a giant park…and your complaint is that you HAVE to go through it?!?

    wow…yep, those dog owners are sure narcissistic.

  41. thepiece April 28, 2009 1:01 pm at 1:01 pm

    @ lazyfish: I’m not sure how you can describe a leash law as “progressive legislation. ” If anything its a short sighted one size fits all solution which favors one group of park users over others. In addition, it’s legislation which adds more enforcement duties onto our already stressed police. And let’s be honest here, on the south side, do you really think the police are going to spend their time citing dog owners in schiller park or looking for arsonists burning down homes, dealing with vandalism, break in’s…etc.
    Also, using anecdotal information is never a great rule for designing city wide legislation.
    I’m in Schiller park almost every day of the year, I can assure you outside of peak weekends during the good weather season, the vast majority of people using the park are people running their dogs. So, if your goal is to remove most of the park users from the park most of year, then I guess this legislation will work for you. Of course unused public spaces are also generally far more dangerous public spaces, so I guess that’s your goal as well?

    As to your other comments…due to my ”poor upbringing”, general rudeness and extreme narcisism, I can’t even formulate a response…. 

    Core, please pm me if there are letters, other activities going on that you know of to organize complaints about this.

  42. jawjack187
    jawjack187 April 28, 2009 1:18 pm at 1:18 pm

    I think the best thing to do is to continue civil dialogue. Please recognize that City Council will continue to work hard to make sure that all sides are heard and respected. People have been complaining about this for quite some time, and something needs to be done. Ideas are important and welcomed. 

  43. lazyfish
    lazyfish April 28, 2009 1:25 pm at 1:25 pm

    Core wrote: So wait…let me get this straight.  All the unleashed dogs are concentrated in a single, tight area in a giant park…and your complaint is that you HAVE to go through it?!?

    yep, when that area is where the three main diagonal walkways that bisect the park is located. There could not be a worse place for the dogs to congregrate, it is more about the laziness of the owners, again they have no one but themselves to blame.

    Core, you have obviously not been to Goodale, come see for yourself, compared to Schiller, it is a nightmare, you would be appalled.

  44. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 28, 2009 1:30 pm at 1:30 pm

    So the OWNERS are lazy, the person who chooses to walk through the middle of them and then complain about it isn’t?

    Interesting.

    30 people are using the park the same way, together, and enjoying it. A single person walking chooses to walk through the middle of that compact group instead of around and complain about what a nuisance they are…

  45. lazyfish
    lazyfish April 28, 2009 1:48 pm at 1:48 pm

    dude, on this issue your passion and self interest are obviously clouding your reason.  Sidewalks are throughfares for all people to utilize, people in general should not block them, dogs in particular should not block them as many folks are afraid of dogs, they limit the ability of children, the elderly, and the disabled to pass through unmolested. This is really an issue of courtesy, if 30 people do it, it still don’t make it kosher. Last I checked, courtesy and good manners was not about majority rule, if anything it is about respecting the rights of others, particularily the minority of folks who migjht feel differently about an issue.

  46. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 28, 2009 2:00 pm at 2:00 pm

    If there was no other sidewalk to get from one side of the park to the other, I would agree.

    Judging by this map, that’s not the case.

  47. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 28, 2009 2:03 pm at 2:03 pm

    now, if the intersection you’re referring to is NOT the one clearly designated in the green area, I would agree with you.  If, however, it is a group of people standing at the intersection of paths on the big X inside it?  Not so much.

  48. lifeliberty
    lifeliberty April 28, 2009 2:03 pm at 2:03 pm

    LF,
    the only thing this law might change is that people will have their dogs on leashes, it doesn’t force them out of parks and off the sidewalks.

    but really it looks to me like you want this law in hopes that it will essentially kick dog owners out of parks.

  49. lazyfish
    lazyfish April 28, 2009 2:06 pm at 2:06 pm

    that is, in fact, the case, look at the google earth map, notice the dead zone, with no grass growing, notice how it is the hub of the 3 spokes that bisect the park, there is no other way through the park, except through the middle of the dog malestrom, your only other choice is to walk around the park…. again, come see for yourself!

  50. lazyfish
    lazyfish April 28, 2009 2:10 pm at 2:10 pm

    lifeliberty wrote:
    the only thing this law might change is that people will have their dogs on leashes, it doesn’t force them out of parks and off the sidewalks.
    but really it looks to me like you want this law in hopes that it will essentially kick dog owners out of parks.

    not true, and you’re way off base. Friends of Goodale, the city and DOGPAW have agreed on an unfenced off leash area for the park….now if the dogowners can’t comply maybe you will be right. BTW I like walking dogs off leash, but only allow highly trained dogs to walk off leash in congested areas.

  51. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 28, 2009 2:12 pm at 2:12 pm

    Then again…we’re right back where we started, enforce what’s in place now before you start creating new laws and rules.  At Schiller, we set up a Pups Zone several years ago and people have stuck with it for the most part (long after the signs disappeared).

  52. lifeliberty
    lifeliberty April 28, 2009 2:15 pm at 2:15 pm

    Exactly. 

    LF, I don’t have a problem with the proposed changes you mentioned, but making a city wide law regarding this is wrong.  (I appologize if i inferred anything in opposition to the truth regarding your intentions, but it would just seem this law would essentially do that-kick dog owners out of parks)

  53. thepiece April 28, 2009 2:39 pm at 2:39 pm

    “LF, I don’t have a problem with the proposed changes you mentioned, but making a city wide law regarding this is wrong.” 
    +1
    Again, this is creating a city wide law because of isolated incidents at a few places. If if the law said no off leash dogs on weekends during the summer or not in certain areas of the park (such as near the intersection you reference), or limit off leash areas to schiller, goodale and whetstone, then I could understand, but a city wide ban seems reactionary and pretty extreme.

  54. Columbusite April 28, 2009 5:02 pm at 5:02 pm

    Speaking of isolated incidents, how about going after run-down windowless bars where people have been killed? Not exactly going to get people reinvesting in those respective inner-city neighborhoods when there are places that attract violence, not to mention serving as an eyesore at the same time. Some design standards would be a good start.

  55. NerosNeptune April 28, 2009 6:13 pm at 6:13 pm

    Don’t get me wrong.. I think people should certainly be allowed to take their dogs to the park and play with them.. It’s not like most people have yards for their dogs to be in.

    The area I was talking about is not what is labeled as the dog play area on the map core models posted. That area is usually full of people playing with their dogs and is my favorite part of the park.

    The western part of the area labeled Dog Free Area is what I am talking about. It tends to be packed full of people all around the sidewalk and their dogs running around the sidewalks.

    It isn’t *that* big of a deal to me to be honest. It’s pretty low on my list of things about life that I’d like to change. And a leash law wouldn’t really fix what annoys me about it, because the dogs would still be concentrated in the same area. The spread out leashless dogs in the Dog Play Area have never been an anoyance to me.

  56. mstimple April 28, 2009 9:12 pm at 9:12 pm

    totally agree with thepiece.  We dog owners often times during the winter and bad weather are the only ones in Goodale park except for the shady looking homeless men.  If we are not allowed to have our dogs there off leash for them to exercise then the area will regress into a non vibrant unpopulated field like it was before the area gentrified.  It would be only a matter of time till someone was mugged.  The vibrancy that dog owers and families with children bring to the park are priceless.  Why mess with a good thing.

  57. chrisgillespie
    chrisgillespie April 28, 2009 9:54 pm at 9:54 pm

    First of all, thanks for using the Friends of Goodale Park website, Coremodels.  That map may actually be changing some based on discussion (to provide a rotation of off-leash dog areas to allow grass to regenerate) — and it sometimes takes us a while to make maps.  Without a leash law, I’m not certain how well that rotation will be able to be enforced, since we couldn’t get folks to stop using the area marked in red.  The Friends is supporting designated off-leash areas in Goodale AND a leash law.  Consideration of others would go a long way to ease tensions, and from what I hear from Core and LL’s statements, they agree that that is the best approach.  However, having something enforcable provides an excellent tool to use to change some bad behavior.  Let’s put this in perspective.  Certainly, it’s not the biggest issue facing Columbus, so I don’t see some dedicated police force running around cracking down on dog owners.  However, being able to have a couple of days where we have a police officer able to write some tickets so everyone is educated and on board with appropriate behavior could have a real impact (and would take the pressure off of folks who have been trying, but don’t speak with the same authority or get the same respect as a police officer would).  And, even though this isn’t the biggest issue facing Columbus, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be addressed at all.  If an issue can be reasonably addressed, it should not be dismissed only because it isn’t the biggest issue being faced.  I should add, I don’t at all see this as trying to drive dogs out of the parks.  This isn’t an anti-dog movement.  In fact, LF really is a dog person, and really does spend time with a couple of very cool dogs off lead in Goodale.  This is simply a way to alleviate ongoing concerns.  My hope is that it will lead to a more balanced, harmonious use of the park by all members of the community.

  58. Core_Models
    Core_Models April 29, 2009 5:42 am at 5:42 am

    The problem is chris, if this legislation is enacted in 6 weeks, they have no reason to then give you designated off leash areas or times or anything else.  Those things should happen well before the leash law is read into a City Council meeting, let alone voted on.

    The issue, as I’m hearing it, isn’t with dogs being off leash…its with dogs being out of control.  The good news is, this is already illegal.  People keep saying how difficult it is to enforce, why?  If you see no difficulty with a cop standing in the park issuing tickets to dogs without leashes for a few days…why not have a cop standing in the park issuing tickets to dogs that are out of control for a few days?

    I truly fail to see the difference, other than one of them removes a privilege from people who aren’t abusing it.

    I see fishermen in Schiller who leave hooks, line, trash, dead fish, empty 40′s, etc. along the shore all the time.  This is already illegal behavior, but should the city ban fishing for the ease of simply ticketing anyone with a pole…or spend the time needed to actually catch the people abusing the situation as is?

    The laws are already in place, combine them with a greater effort of enforcement and an effort to keep to the compromises created and you solve the problem without ruining it for everyone.

  59. HeySquare
    HeySquare April 29, 2009 9:24 am at 9:24 am

    I have to ask… are the majority of the complaints coming about city parks though?

    Even in this thread I see people confusing the idea of an off-leash dog with a loose dog, i.e. a dog that is at large without owner supervision. Loose dogs seem to be the biggest problem, and where the majority of the human injuries happen.

    And again, that could be controlled under existing legislation if the police would take action.

  60. thepiece April 29, 2009 10:16 am at 10:16 am

    “The problem is chris, if this legislation is enacted in 6 weeks, they have no reason to then give you designated off leash areas or times or anything else. ”
    +1
    If that really is the intention, to still allow off leash areas in the big city parks, then get it in the legislation now. Because the way this is written that is not going to be allowed (and unless you have the law amended at a later date it will not be).

  61. clumsybell April 29, 2009 10:54 am at 10:54 am

    @lazyfish Oh, give me a break. I’ve lived near Goodale for years. It is NOT that hard to avoid the dog area entirely.

    “yep, when that area is where the three main diagonal walkways that bisect the park is located. There could not be a worse place for the dogs to congregrate, it is more about the laziness of the owners, again they have no one but themselves to blame. Core, you have obviously not been to Goodale, come see for yourself, compared to Schiller, it is a nightmare, you would be appalled.”

  62. clumsybell April 29, 2009 11:05 am at 11:05 am

    @lazyfish Also: I saw a cop shoot a dog last week on Maynard. There were at least 10 cops, 6 cop cars, Animal Control van and officer, a CPD paddy wagon, and a HELICOPTER that responded to reports of this “vicious” dog. It had killed a cat (the cat was not mauled, its neck was broken). It had been reported that the dog was a pit bull. Upon seeing the dog, the cop jumped out of his car without waiting for Animal Control and when the dog approached the cop he shot it. The cop either missed what he was aiming for or was an extremely good shot because it turns out the dog was only shot in the foot. Animal Control got there about a minute after that. When it was caught, it was obvious that the dog was not a pitbull – at most it could have been a mix. This “vicious” dog was NOT taken by Animal Control, not tested for rabies or other illnesses, not quarantined to have its behavior observed… the owner was permitted to drive away with it in his van to take it to the vet. So, “documentation,” Columbus Police DO (at least sometimes) respond to reports of out-of-control dogs, and apparently with quite an entourage. I guess all it takes is the keywords “loose pitbull” and “dead cat.” I’m sorry to hear that they didn’t come in the case you mentioned. I don’t know why they didn’t, because they definitely pulled out all the stops for that “vicious” “pitbull.” Maybe there’s a problem with communication/clarity of rules between 911 and CPD.

    “Documentation….sure 2 off leash dogs in Iuka on Friday attack, maul, and bloody a golden retreiver and a rat terrier, when 911 was called the response was that the police don’t take dog complaints…”

  63. marymo April 29, 2009 12:30 pm at 12:30 pm

    I’d like to preface my comment by saying that I support the off-leash dog areas in Goodale, and when I’m walking through the park without my dog I love checking out all the new puppies and breeds that I don’t usually see around my ‘hood.

    That said, I have two points.  The first is, I have a dog that can’t be off-leash and I have had to stop going to Goodale with her.  I always avoid the designated off-leash areas, but even in the areas where the dogs don’t congregate I inevitably get an off-leash dog running up to my dog, which causes trouble.  I’ve even experienced two seperate occassions of dogs running across the street when I was walking my dog on Dennison.  I realize this is an issue of the current law (control of dog) not being enforced, but if all the well-intentioned irresponsible dog owners felt like their dog had to be on a leash it wouldn’t be an issue and I could just walk around the other dog and owner (like I do on sidewalks, etc).

    Second, to argue that if Goodale was not off-leash it would have no dog owners is nonsense.  There are tons of dogs in that area and many will walk them through the park on-leash to excercise them. (Myself included!)  Sure they will drive/walk them to an off-leash park to let off steam – maybe even daily – but they will also have to walk them, and Goodale will still be a beautiful place to do that.   I do think that this will be an inconvenience and as someone who wishes I had dog that can be off-leash I can see why that conveniece is a huge deal. 

    In summary, I agree with the law as-is and think a new law is silly, but I also agree that perhaps there should be deeper thought as to how we can make things better.

  64. Walker Evans
    Walker May 11, 2009 6:21 pm at 6:21 pm

    Sounds like the scheduled dates mentioned in the original post have been canceled. Via email:

    Dear Community Leaders,

    Many of you may have received information recently regarding a proposed agenda date for the introduction of leash and dog waste legislation. At this time, the legislation has not been scheduled for a City Council meeting and will not be on any upcoming agenda.

    We will be sure to keep the residents of Columbus updated as we move forward with this effort.

    If there is anything else this office can do to be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please feel free to forward this email along to any other groups or individuals that may be interested in this effort, or may have received the aforementioned information.

Want to comment?

Login or register first.

Lost your password?

politics categories