Pawing for more Cash

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Children are different than dogs.

I don't like kids though. Why should I have to pay for other people's brats?

[macker]

Originally Posted by fotze

I'd agree if dog owners weren't such a group of pigs. Go to edworthy and that first gully will make you just want to punch people absolute cesspool there.

The problem I have is that it will be $25 the first year and it will just go up from there, and the service will shrink. There is no more positive guarantee in life than that happening.

They could hire me for 10 bucks an hour I'd make 10's of thousands a day giving out $150 poo tickets to owners. Also, who are those ######s who tie the poo bag to a tree? Thanks fataface for the extra effort.

I see that all the time. The only thing worse than cleaning up your dogs crap is cleaning up someone elses....I am not a dog poop nazi but have gotten into a couple of stare downs with people who put their little plastic bag right up to the crap and then fake you out and leave it behind. Part of the dog walking experience is crap and there has to be a way to get people to do their part and if they don't/won't then you need to charge a fee to get someone else to do it for them. It is dirt cheap compared to cleaning crap. I will pay someone $25 right now to come over and clean my backyard

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Children are different than dogs.

Nice try. You want user fees for some and not for others. Double standard in my books.

Dog owners think of thier pets as being part of the family. I grew up with 2 dogs in the family and when it was time to put them down it was one of the hardest things I ever had to do. It's partialy a reason why I don't own a dog today. I can't bear the thought of having to put another dog down when the time comes.

[CGYTransplant]

As a dog owner, I have no problem paying an additional fee for dog parks, as long as I see some benefits- (eg) garbages are emptied more often, benches are installed, water fountains installed for the summer, etc.)

I do think that offleash parks, especially ones that are NOT multi-use, are of great value- you can let your dog run free and play without worrying about him getting hit by a bike, or having to deal with raging parents who demand you put your dog down because he "attacked my child" (For future reference, parents, dogs cannot kill with their tongues. That is called LICKING, and it's a sign of affection)

My concern is enforceablility. Are they going to put up huge fences with electronic gates, and give swipecards to the people who pay the fee, to ensure no non-paying dog owners can't get into the parks and use them? Have a bylaw guy sitting in his running vehicle all day, who will check for proof of payment as we enter (keep your recepits, people!)?

Additionally, I know people who register their dogs (so they can get them back if they go missing), but NEVER take them to an offleash park, for various reasons (dog has poor recall, or is too old, or is just cranky in general)- should they have to pay for a service they are never going to use?

I think it's a good idea in theory, but it will be damn near impossible to really enforce....unless we all just deal with the fact that some people are going to NOT pay and continue to use the parks.


EDITED TO ADD: Silver- My dog doesn't bark. Ever. I trained her not to. I pick up her poop in the backyard, every day. I pick up her poop in the park, every time, and if she somehow sneaks one in that I don't see or can't find, I pick up someone else's poo-pile so that the poo-balance stays the same. I don't take her to parks where she is not allowed, and I hardly even walk her, on leash, on the sidewalks and paths...I just take her to the park and back. I have taken her to obedience classes, and I work with her daily, to make sure that she is a polite dog that people WANT to have around. For all intents and purposes, SHE IS MY BABY.

Yes, there are bad dog owners out there. I hate them as much as you do. But, let's be honest, there are some pretty craptastic parents out there as well. Why should I have to sit next to a screaming child, smelling it's dirty diaper while I'm eating lunch? Why should I have to put up with a toddler having a tantrum in the airplane seat behind me, for 8 hours? Why should my taxes go to schools, or playgrounds, or children's pools in rec centers? I have no use for any of these things...but I should put up with them because they're for the "future of society"? Hell, for that matter, why am I paying (through taxes) for old age homes, and assisted living facilities- I don't need them, I don't use them! Same goes for therapy programs (physical and occupational)? The "I don't use it, so why am I paying for it" argument is a very very dangerous one, and I think it is one of the few places that the "slippery slope" argument can be used without sounding ridiculous.

That is the kicker of living in society- you have to pay for things you don't necessarily use, but whose existence is better for the society as a whole. Dogs have been proven to lower agitation in non-verbal dementia patients, and people with mental disabilities. They help people with physical disabilities live productive lives. They find backcountry skiiers who get lost. They sniff out bombs, and drugs, and all sorts of contraband. They take down dangerous criminals, when human police officers cannot. They are used to teach compassion in elementary schools, as well as to young offenders, and to rehabilitate ex-cons.

I am truly sorry that you don't like dogs. Until I got my girl, I could have never dreamed of what a positive impact she would have on my life. I honestly believe that dogs are the only creatures that can love a human unconditionally (and if you don't believe me, just wait until your kid screams at you that they hate you and you ruined their life). It makes me sad that you don't know the comfort that can come from a dog setting it's head in your lap when you're sad, or the joy that comes from seeing that furry face and ferociously wagging tail, greeting you at the door after a long day. They are the only creatures who love you again immediately after you yell at them, and who forget all your transgressions as soon as you give them a treat. Like Cowperson's signature says, I strive to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am.

[Cowperson]

I can't see how they would enforce dog park fees on-site without some sort of costly infrastructure.

Therefore all dog owners should pay through higher dog licence fees with the off-leash parks open to anyone who wants to use them.

The KISS principle.

I have two dogs but they're never in the city.

Cowperson

[Russic]

Originally Posted by Sliver

You've got to be kidding me...more dog parks?! What a fataing outrage. There shouldn't be any parks that allow dogs to run around leash or no leash. The only park I'd find acceptable for dogs to run around in is one privately owned. I HATE that a single penny of mine goes toward maintenance of these germy, disgusting places. As far as I'm concerned the $25 fee is just a token gesture to appease people like me, but it does nothing to address the problem, IMO.

Your dog should be allowed to urinate and crap in your backyard and nowhere else (and you should be required to clean it up daily so I don't have to smell it when I walk by your house - and don't even get me started on having to listen to your mutt bark). It's absurd we let them crap and piss all over public spaces. For crying out loud if a person pees in a public space they face a fine, meanwhile dogs are doing their business all around the parks at which my kids play.

If I took a dump in my own backyard once a day I bet it wouldn't be long before the cops showed up. I'd probably have to undergo some psychological testing for that and I probably would end up in the nuthouse. How people can't see it's just as nasty when a dog does it is beyond me.

And every dog owner I've ever met says they clean up their dog's crap. Yeah right. I'm sure every dog owner, at least once a year, doesn't pick up their dog's crap. That's thousands of pile of crap right there, nevermind the people that don't pick it up on a regular basis. But know what no dog owner picks up? Pee. Disgusting!

And you don't want to pay for playgrounds because you don't have kids? That's a nonsense arguement. Kids are the future of humanity. Humanity would be just fine without dogs. We need kids and we need them to be healthy, active, socialized, etc. for the future of our species. I think we can throw some tax dollars their way for playgrounds considering they will grow up to be tax-paying citizens that will reimburse us for the use of the playgrounds 1000x over throughout their tax-paying career.

So you want me to pick up my dogs piss? If you are Dess you're doing a horrible job of hiding it.

Originally Posted by Cowperson

I can't see how they would enforce dog park fees on-site without some sort of costly infrastructure.

Therefore all dog owners should pay through higher dog licence fees with the off-leash parks open to anyone who wants to use them.

The KISS principle.

I have two dogs but they're never in the city.

Cowperson

I agree. While it would suck to get boned on the higher registration fee it seems like the only reasonable way to do it. I'm a fan of behaviour related taxes (cigarettes, alcohol, LRT parking), so it would be hypocritical of me to complain about something just because suddenly I'm effected.

Constructing 15 greenspaces for dog owners would not be a cheap exercise and I don't think people without dogs should have to pay for it.

[Dion]

A better idea would be to sell sponsorships to these dog parks. For a fee allow dog food companies to attach thier name on certain dog parks and be allowed put up advertizing on the fence surrounding the park. The fee could then be used for maintinence of such parks.

[TheU]

Originally Posted by flip

Dude, you just barked up the wrong tree. There are several things you just don't argue on CP. Evolution, ######s, teachers, generalizing americans and dogs.

Just don't do it. You'll never win and the wrath of the CP dog lovers will crush you while you lose.

You just say that cuz your a man who prefers cats

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CGYTransplant

EDITED TO ADD: Silver- My dog doesn't bark. Ever. I trained her not to. I pick up her poop in the backyard, every day. I pick up her poop in the park, every time, and if she somehow sneaks one in that I don't see or can't find, I pick up someone else's poo-pile so that the poo-balance stays the same. I don't take her to parks where she is not allowed, and I hardly even walk her, on leash, on the sidewalks and paths...I just take her to the park and back. I have taken her to obedience classes, and I work with her daily, to make sure that she is a polite dog that people WANT to have around. For all intents and purposes, SHE IS MY BABY.

You sound like a terrific dog owner. I believe you are in the minority, but IMO you are doing a great job and if all dog owners were like you I would have ZERO problem with dogs.

Also, thanks for acknowledging some of my valid concerns versus piling on.

Originally Posted by CGYTransplant

Yes, there are bad dog owners out there. I hate them as much as you do. But, let's be honest, there are some pretty craptastic parents out there as well. Why should I have to sit next to a screaming child, smelling it's dirty diaper while I'm eating lunch? Why should I have to put up with a toddler having a tantrum in the airplane seat behind me, for 8 hours? Why should my taxes go to schools, or playgrounds, or children's pools in rec centers? I have no use for any of these things...but I should put up with them because they're for the "future of society"? Hell, for that matter, why am I paying (through taxes) for old age homes, and assisted living facilities- I don't need them, I don't use them! Same goes for therapy programs (physical and occupational)? The "I don't use it, so why am I paying for it" argument is a very very dangerous one, and I think it is one of the few places that the "slippery slope" argument can be used without sounding ridiculous.

I respectfully disagree with you here. Kids actually are the future of society - as corny as that sounds it's actually the truth. Also, kids are only a smelly, noisy, annoying inconvenience for a relatively short period of their life versus what they have the potential to give back to society for the other ~80% of their life.

With respect to the other programs/facilities you mentioned (eg therapy, old age), these are programs for people. I think most of us would agree that people are more important than animals, no matter how much we may love our animals. For example, if you had to choose one member of your family to die - and we were including dogs as a member of your family since most dog owners say their dog is a member of their family - I think you would choose your dog to die simply because the people in your life are more important to you.

Originally Posted by CGYTransplant

That is the kicker of living in society- you have to pay for things you don't necessarily use, but whose existence is better for the society as a whole. Dogs have been proven to lower agitation in non-verbal dementia patients, and people with mental disabilities. They help people with physical disabilities live productive lives. They find backcountry skiiers who get lost. They sniff out bombs, and drugs, and all sorts of contraband. They take down dangerous criminals, when human police officers cannot. They are used to teach compassion in elementary schools, as well as to young offenders, and to rehabilitate ex-cons.

Yes dogs can have a very positive impact. They can also have a negative impact with barking, defecation, urination, attacking, etc.

I suppose, then, the problem I have is really with dog owners. Again, most dog owners are not nearly as conscientious as you are.

Originally Posted by CGYTransplant

I am truly sorry that you don't like dogs. Until I got my girl, I could have never dreamed of what a positive impact she would have on my life. I honestly believe that dogs are the only creatures that can love a human unconditionally (and if you don't believe me, just wait until your kid screams at you that they hate you and you ruined their life). It makes me sad that you don't know the comfort that can come from a dog setting it's head in your lap when you're sad, or the joy that comes from seeing that furry face and ferociously wagging tail, greeting you at the door after a long day. They are the only creatures who love you again immediately after you yell at them, and who forget all your transgressions as soon as you give them a treat. Like Cowperson's signature says, I strive to be the kind of person my dog thinks I am.

lol you make having a dog sound very attractive right here, I have to admit. I don't have the time in my life right now to be the kind of dog owner I should be, which is what you are. I suspect you're sugar coating owning a dog a bit with the above paragraph, but if you're not you made me want one. haha

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Dion

A better idea would be to sell sponsorships to these dog parks. For a fee allow dog food companies to attach thier name on certain dog parks and be allowed put up advertizing on the fence surrounding the park. The fee could then be used for maintinence of such parks.

It may be possible to do that tastefully, but I have a feeling it would look kind of shabby, especially in a residential area. If it was in the industrial park or something that could be fine, though.

[CGYTransplant]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Also, kids are only a smelly, noisy, annoying inconvenience for a relatively short period of their life versus what they have the potential to give back to society for the other ~80% of their life.

I disagree with this. I find most humans to be a smelly, noisy inconvenience- have you ever taken the CTrain at rush hour? Stood next to a teenage boy after gym class, during their (sometimes years-long) "shower aversion phase"? Lived next to someone who had curry EVERY. SINGLE. NIGHT? And potential is only a good thing if it's actually REALIZED.

I'm not denying that "the children are our future", because of course they are. I'm just saying that there are tons of people out there who H-A-T-E children....and they still have to deal with them on a daily basis.

I think you would choose your dog to die simply because the people in your life are more important to you.

You have never met my family. You cannot make that judgement.

And, yeah, people are "more important" than animals...but why stop there? After the initial fertilization, males play no essential role in their child's growth or development....so are women more important than men? Why don't we just harvest all their sperm, and exterminate all men (to borrow some hysteria from DESS)? Every living thing has a role to play in life- whether it's for food, or companionship, or to propagate the species....when you start making "More important" arguments, you're on dangerous ground.

I suppose, then, the problem I have is really with dog owners. Again, most dog owners are not nearly as conscientious as you are.

In my experience, they are. It's a case of the bad 5% making it difficult for the other 95% of us. You can't punish all of us because some of us can't be good owners....just like you can't punish all parents because some parents are total crap, and their kids end up being gangbangers or drug dealers or whatever.

lol you make having a dog sound very attractive right here, I have to admit. I don't have the time in my life right now to be the kind of dog owner I should be, which is what you are. I suspect you're sugar coating owning a dog a bit with the above paragraph, but if you're not you made me want one. haha

I'm not sugar coating dog ownership any more than parents sugar coat having children. There's poop, and pee, and puke, and noise and crying and your house is a mess, but at the end of the day, your life is better.

[onetwo_threefour]

I'm the worst of both worlds, I have two dogs and two young children.... Scary!! Of course, if we don't pick up poop fast enough in the back yard or on our walks, my youngest runs around shouting "Poo, Poo!!" at the top of his lungs and pointing at it the whole time.

Anyway, to answer some earlier question, our dog registration fees are apparently the only source of funds for the Animal Control people. According to a notice I got with my last licence renwals, they get zero dollars from the City.

As such the idea that that money is going elsewhere and could support the cost of constructing and maintaining ofleash parks is probably wrong. Having said that as long as dogs are licensed and required to be leashed I think it is at least somewhat reasonable for dog owners to expect come area in the city where they csn take their dogs offleash for some exercise, just like I think it's reasonable for most parks to be no-dogs allowed or on-leash area to preserve those who don't want to come into contact with offleash animals from having to experience that.

The point is, when the city allows the development of new communities, they mandate a certain amount of greenspace/parklands, I personally think it is reasonable to designate some as playground, some as reserve, some as off-leash and whatever else makes sense to balance the various lifestyles of citizens in the community. To the extent that this happens, everybody is supporting everyone else's way of living in a reasonably equitable fashion.

The whole argument that children are the future and dogs are DESSian creatures of nightmare comes across as irrelevant and antagonistic. (Kind of like everything DESS posted)

As a better example, since kids pee in public pools should parents have to pay a surcharge for their children to use public pools? I mean if I don't want to have to be exposed to swimming in your kid's pee, shouldn't I be outraged that there are publically funded pools that allow peeing children in them and they don't charge families extra for that?

[HPLovecraft]

Siver is the person who buys kittens then throws them away when she/he doesn't like them anymore, right?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by fotze

If they pay for people to enforce poo rules or clean them up than great, but they will promise that at first then erode it each year and they will be back to poo parks in no time. Then my dog will be dead and I wont care.

I doo wish they user fee'd things that were much more costly than this. i.e. 100 million dollar overpasses that I will use once in my lifetime. Am a fan of user fees, even though this will be one that affects me. Start doing it on more significant cost items though.

If you really must know, gas taxes pay for a substantial part of those roads. And trucks use those roads to deliver goods to your favourite stores so that you can walk to them.

In regards to the pet license fee, a substantial portion of that money goes towards the recovery of lost animals.

[Red_Baron]

Dog haters are a lower form of human than Canucks fans.

As for the park user fee: What happens with out-of town people visiting? Sometimes when I'm traveling with my dogs, I'll use the parks so they can get some exercise as well as being able to relieve themselves (and YES I pick up the solids 100% of the time, just like 90% of dog owners do).

[Russic]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Siver is the person who buys kittens then throws them away when she/he doesn't like them anymore, right?

Yes that is correct.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Place is amazing. I go there all the time and deliberately park by the one dumpster because I know my dog is gonna crap the minute she's out of the truck. On sunday, I let her out and she immediately bolted over to a bunch of dogs that were close to the dumpster. She crapped right away, and as I was walking up to pick it up, some guy swooped in and picked it up before I got there. I was like 30 feet away and hollared "yo, bro! That's my dog, I got it" he just shrugged and did it anyway. Okie dokey. Thanks, man!

I'm there with Orson (big black long haired Newf) every morning, if you see us, feel free to say 'hi'. You'll find I'm not that terrible even if I am the left's version of HOZ.

Was the guy who picked up your dog's dooo, carrying a big white pail and a shovel? If so, he's always there doing things like that every day.

The one downside about River Park is there has been a lot of car prowling. I had a window broken on my XTerra there recently.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dion

Nice try. You want user fees for some and not for others. Double standard in my books.

I guess it is a double standard if you think dogs are as important as people.

"Why should I pay a user fee for a dog playground if parents don't have to pay a user fee for a kid playground?" is what you are saying.

Parents shouldn't have to pay a user fee for a kid playground because the kid playground is for humans. Dog owners should have to pay a user fee for dog playground because the dog playground is for dogs.

Dogs are not as important as people.

Originally Posted by Dion

Dog owners think of thier pets as being part of the family.

Well that's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that owning a dog is an unnecessary luxury (please spare me the seeing-eye dog business). If you love your dog and see him as part of the family then good for you. If the dog is that important, then is 2 bucks a month a big deal?

________

From: Joanne Smith
Subject: Looking for a good home
Date: December 2, 2009 1:23:54
To: Sally Mimosa, Tom Collins, Brian Caesar, and a bunch of other people

Hi guys,

As you well know, Dave and I had our first child in March. Little Alissa has brought a lot of joy and sunshine, not to mention little sleep and a lot of poopy diapers into our lives. Over the last few months she has had some health issues, mostly respiratory, and we've been a little stressed about it.

Recently our pediatrician told us that the respiratory illnesses are a symptom of an allergy to our beloved golden retriever, Misty.

This has brought us to a heart-wrenching decision -- we'll have to give her away, but only to a good home. Dave got Misty as a pup before we were married and we really love her, so we've decided to give Alissa away to a loving home.

If you know anyone at work, someone who owns a nice farm or something, that might be able to provide a loving home to a 9 month old beautiful baby girl, please pass this email along to them.

She's 30 inches long, about 20 pounds, absolutely adorable (great genes!) and wonderful with children.

Thanks for your help,

Jo

[Dion]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I guess it is a double standard if you think dogs are as important as people.

"Why should I pay a user fee for a dog playground if parents don't have to pay a user fee for a kid playground?" is what you are saying.

It's a double standard when you pick and choose who you think should pay user fees.

Parents shouldn't have to pay a user fee for a kid playground because the kid playground is for humans. Dog owners should have to pay a user fee for dog playground because the dog playground is for dogs.

Dogs are not as important as people.

Well that's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that owning a dog is an unnecessary luxury (please spare me the seeing-eye dog business). If you love your dog and see him as part of the family then good for you. If the dog is that important, then is 2 bucks a month a big deal?

So a lonely senior who isn't able to get out much and views having a dog in thier home as good company is an unecessary luxury? Guess she/he should suffer alone by your standards.

It might suprise you that in nursing homes dog visitations are a regular routine. Owners of dogs bring them into these places so seniors can have some time with the dogs. They do a lot to lift the spirits and morale of seniors. Especially the ones i've been a volunteer in. So please spare me the owning of a dog is an unnecessary luxury.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Dion

It's a double standard when you pick and choose who you think should pay user fees.

I guess I'm not making my point properly, so I'll try to make it more clear:

People are more important than dogs, so parks for people are different than parks for dogs. There can't be a double standard when the standards are not the same.

You are equating a playground for dogs with a playground for human children.

Originally Posted by Dion

So a lonely senior who isn't able to get out much and views having a dog in thier home as good company is an unecessary luxury? Guess she/he should suffer alone by your standards.

It might suprise you that in nursing homes dog visitations are a regular routine. Owners of dogs bring them into these places so seniors can have some time with the dogs. They do a lot to lift the spirits and morale of seniors. Especially the ones i've been a volunteer in. So please spare me the owning of a dog is an unnecessary luxury.

And it might surprise you that I heard a choir of angels, a golden harp and the beep-beep-beep of a truck backing up when I read that.