The Observation Deck

It seems that there is never an end to dog issues in this town.

The latest involves council member David Anderson and his proposed ordinance to mandate county dog licenses for dogs in Lakewood Parks. The only benefit I can see from this is to the county - money for the county animal shelter and the county itself. Yet Lakewood has its own shelter which always needs funds, and there are people asking for a more conveniently located dog park. Also the dog park we have could use more consistent monitoring - I hesitate to take my dogs there because of its reputation for attracting irresponsible dog owners.

So what good do Cuyahoga dog licenses do Lakewood? The town might be better served by its own park dog ID program that would mandate vaccinations, neutering/spay and microchipping, which has come way down in cost, especially at the vet clinics at the pet stores. With a little training, chipping is not hard to do.

But the cost of the Cuyahoga tags has gone way up in price in recent years. It's now $20 per dog and $20 per dog late fee, so with two dogs the cost to a forgetful owner is a not very reasonable $80. I pay it just to avoid any kind of citation, but I question loudly: what good does it do me or my dogs? Can anyone prove that it helps return a lost dog? No proof of vaccinations is required so it does not even ensure the health of other dogs I encounter. Let's take a deep breath before we enact another "no" law.

Speaking of "no" dog laws, 87-year-old Fay Olson has been objecting to Lakewood's ban on extendable dog leashes. As for me, I've got no problem with the ban. When I adopt my greyhounds I have to sign a contract saying I won't use the extendable leashes, and that's fine because I don't want to - I lose a lot of control over the dog with them. But I can see where exceptions should be made, such as the case Fay Olson presents. Again, Lakewood needs to be careful when enacting "no" ordinances that all contingencies are covered.

But to people like Fay, please, please, PLEASE, if you see me coming with my greyhounds on my short leashes, reel your dog in because my dogs may not be able to discern a difference between your small pet and a rabbit, which thousands of years of DNA instruct them to chase.

The latest involves council member David Anderson and his proposed ordinance to mandate county dog licenses for dogs in Lakewood Parks.

And this is why it’s good that David Anderson is not seeking to keep his council seat.

I don't see how the County dog license law could be enforced, but I am a huge proponent of the retractable leash ban. Any reputable dog trainer will tell you that these type of leads put the dog in control instead of the owner. I personally knew of an instance where a dog on a retractable leash saw a squirrel on the opposite side of the street that it was being walked on and charged, breaking the lead. The dog ran into traffic, was hit by a car and killed. The owner was devastated and vowed to never again use one of these devices.

The size of the dog does not matter. We have a Chihuahua that weighs less than 6 pounds, but we would never walk him on a retractable leash. We are constantly approached by people walking their dogs who use these and they just let their dogs approach ours like they want to be friends. We have a family member who had 2 small dogs killed by neighborhood dogs. We can't take this chance with our little guy.

Earlier this year, someone was walking her large pit bull on a retractable leash down our street. I had to pick our dog up just as a precaution. When I told her about the ban on her leash, she told me to "F**k off" . . .

Speaking of "no" dog laws, 87-year-old Fay Olson has been objecting to Lakewood's ban on extendable dog leashes. As for me, I've got no problem with the ban. When I adopt my greyhounds I have to sign a contract saying I won't use the extendable leashes, and that's fine because I don't want to - I lose a lot of control over the dog with them. But I can see where exceptions should be made, such as the case Fay Olson presents. Again, Lakewood needs to be careful when enacting "no" ordinances that all contingencies are covered.

But to people like Fay, please, please, PLEASE, if you see me coming with my greyhounds on my short leashes, reel your dog in because my dogs may not be able to discern a difference between your small pet and a rabbit, which thousands of years of DNA instruct them to chase.

I agree that retractable dog leashes are not safe to use. For one thing, they can break. For another, irresponsible people think nothing of letting their dog run onto the property of others and do their business.

However, I have always found Faye to be nothing but aware, conscientious and responsible when walking her dogs. We've been neighbors for over 25 years, and I have had lots of interaction with her..... all positive. She immediately reels her dogs in when someone comes her way.

I've always used a 6' leash on my dogs, but there was one time, when my dog happened to twist his head in a certain way, which resulted in his leash disconnecting from his harness. Nothing was broken..... it was a strange happenstance. He was as surprised as I, to find himself suddenly free.

With my current dog, he was a master at wriggling out of his harness, until I found one that really works.

Faye stays on the north side of Clifton..... walks a couple of blocks to a side street..... turns onto Lake.... and back home again. She is more responsible when walking her dogs, then many other people.

And yes. As for greyhounds, I know of a greyhound that killed a jack russell in a matter of moments. I do not like having my dog anywhere near a greyhound. (And, for some reason, there are many that walk by my home.)

While this is off topic, a few days ago, a friend of mine was walking her small dog down in the valley, when a child lost control of the mixed breed he was walking. The dog headed straight for my friend's dog. She immediately picked up her dog and hugged it to her chest, as she turned her back to the dog.

Fortunately, someone came along and pulled the dog off her, but not before it left scratches on her back.

I also know of a dog that broke through its Invisible Fence to attack another friend's dog. It was touch and go, but the dog survived. The puncture marks on its neck were horrendous, but I helped my friend hand feed her pooch until it could use its jaws again.

I've gotten even further off topic, but those of us with small dogs do not have it easy.

Okay, one thing at a time here.

On licenses, the last couple of summers the county has sent people out into Lakewood to promote and enforce license laws. I don't think it happened this year. My biggest objection is the dog licenses serve no purpose but to provide revenue to the county.
On David Anderson's proposed ordinance, he admitted that it's unenforceable: "Anderson acknowledged that the ordinance is mainly a promotional vehicle reminding residents to register their dogs. In addition to annual and three-year licenses, a permanent dog license is also available for $200. As far as enforcing the ordinance, Anderson said the city won’t be inspecting dog tags at Lakewood parks; however, if an incident requires law enforcement attention, a secondary question could involve dog registration." So why bother us with this?
https://www.cleveland.com/community/201 ... -city.html

On extendable leashes, I agree entirely that they are all but a tool of the devil. But the dangers are mainly to the people using them and their dogs. Seems to me another example of the "nanny state" we have here in Lakewood. When someone like Faye Olson is harassed because of a law, it's time to rethink that law, or at least the guidelines on enforcement. This city has a habit of inserting itself into people's lives a little too frequently.

On greyhounds, I hesitate to get started. I may not stop. Ask Jim. The breed, at least the retired racers of the breed, is incredibly docile, quiet and sometimes a bit goofy. It's a good dog to have in Lakewood, and - surprisingly - in apartments. However, they are predators to their bones, but only of small furry animals. Most greyhound owners are aware of this and are careful to keep these dogs leashed and close when near a small dog. When a small dog barks, they seem to realize that it's another dog. Most cats seem capable of taking care of themselves, but in the past my hounds have killed their share of wild rabbits, and it happens very, very fast. The command to stop is "Leave it!" Good luck getting more than "Lea..." out.

PJ, I'd be happy to talk your ear off about greyhounds.

Thank you, Dan but, I'm aware that greyhounds are good dogs. However, I have a 14 lb rescue dog, who is quite vocal in letting everyone know, that he is my guardian.

He's exactly the type of small dog, that larger dogs find irritating.
No one can positively guarantee that their large dog would absolutely NEVER, EVER attack a small dog.

In past years,Faye has always had corgi's. She now has a corgi and a tiny dog of some sort. Being so small, her dogs are not capable of inflicting serious harm. Plus, corgis are herding dogs. Not hunters.

Like I wrote previously, she is very responsible in her use of the retractable leash. And again, I am not condoning retractable leashes, as I feel, that they are not to be trusted.

pj bennett wrote:Thank you, Dan but, I'm aware that greyhounds are good dogs. However, I have a 14 lb rescue dog, who is quite vocal in letting everyone know, that he is my guardian.

He's exactly the type of small dog, that larger dogs find irritating.
No one can positively guarantee that their large dog would absolutely NEVER, EVER attack a small dog.

In past years,Faye has always had corgi's. She now has a corgi and a tiny dog of some sort. Being so small, her dogs are not capable of inflicting serious harm. Plus, corgis are herding dogs. Not hunters.

Like I wrote previously, she is very responsible in her use of the retractable leash. And again, I am not condoning retractable leashes, as I feel, that they are not to be trusted.

A little bit of barking and my girls back off immediately - "That's not a rabbit!" But no guarantees - well, about anything I suppose.

Hopefully Lakewood will abandon its "nanny state" inclinations in the near future. I know that's a Republican talking point, but oh so appropriate here.

I actually am curious because outside of the dog laws and the recently passed phone bill, what is "nanny state" about Lakewood? Apologies if this is obvious but I legitimately don't understand calling Lakewood a "nanny state".

Matthew Lee wrote:I actually am curious because outside of the dog laws and the recently passed phone bill, what is "nanny state" about Lakewood? Apologies if this is obvious but I legitimately don't understand calling Lakewood a "nanny state".

Let's start with a definition, this one from Wikipedia:
"Nanny state is a conservative term of British origin that conveys a view that a government or its policies are overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choice. The term "nanny state" likens government to the role that a nanny has in child rearing."

I'll need a little help remembering all the various "no" rules we have had here in Lakewood, such as no dogs in the parks and no outdoor basketball. While the particulars in this sign are reasonable in the context of the crowds at Lakewood Park on the Fourth of July, i find the overall impact of this sign is somewhat obnoxious and representative of what I think is a nanny state. I've heard it described as the "no fun" sign. It's the first thing I thought of in this context. This is from 2014, but I think in past years it was even bigger.


Many more examples can be found in the wide ranging discussion and photo collection "Signs, Signs, Everywhere":
http://lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewt ... gns#p61313

It's my impression that Lakewood government's long=standing knee-jerk reaction to problems is to ban them for the good of residents who often can be relied on to make up their own minds.

Can anyone else provide some examples?