Classic case of the cart before the horse
Proponents of city dog park establish rules before there’s even a park; Mayor lukewarm to the idea
WOONSOCKET— The city doesn’t have a dog park – not yet, anyway – but it may soon have some rules governing how one might be operated.
City Council members Melissa Murray and Garrett Mancieri are urging their colleagues to pass the measure as a preamble to further discussions about establishing the city’s first free-range dog park, where the furry four-leggers could romp without a leash.
But the idea is getting a lukewarm reception from Mayor Lisa Baldelli-Hunt. Before proposing regulations, she says the councilors should have given careful consideration to a location where a dog park could operate safely and harmoniously with neighbors.
“They deserve some credit for being forward-thinking,” the mayor said, “but I think they’re getting ahead of themselves. Let’s review where we currently sit as a community to see what our position is to see what works and what doesn’t work.”
Mancieri says he and Murray did their homework before drafting the proposed ordinance. He said the measure is modeled after laws on the books in other cities and towns with dog parks and reflects feedback from local animal control and recreation officials.
“A lot of people have said to me there’s nothing to do in Woonsocket,” said Mancieri. “We’re trying to find things to do that don’t cost an incredible amount of money. I see this as something very inexpensive that we can do just to make the city a little more attractive.”
In contrast to the mayor’s reasoning, Mancieri said he thinks it’s wiser to have rules in place before considering a location.
And the measure on the agenda of tonight’s council meeting has a slew of them. Owners and their pets would have to be in compliance with 17 distinct rules in order to use a dog park. They govern everything from the age of the dog – no pets younger than six
months – to the health of the animals allowed on the premises.
“All dogs must be free of any diseases, parasites, and have no visible wounds or injuries to use the Dog Park,” says “Rule G” in the proposed ordinance.
The ordinance also says the city must be held harmless – that is, it cannot be sued for damages – resulting from any injury caused by a dog to another person or pet in the park. Pet owners, on the other hand, could be held financially liable for any damage to a park caused by themselves or their pet.
Dangerous dogs would be entirely prohibited from entering the park. Any pet owner who knowingly violates the prohibition could be fined $100.
The measure would require any dog bite that occurs in the park to be reported to the Woonsocket Police Department, which would have the discretion of fining the owners $50 for a first offense – more for subsequent offenses.
The law also provides for fines of up to $100 for anyone who violates any of the other 17 provisions of the proposed ordinance. Among those:
No children under eight years old allowed. Children between nine and 16 would be allowed if accompanied by an adult, parent or guardian.
Park would be off-limits to any dog that isn’t spayed or neutered
Owners would be responsible for picking up their dog’s poop Mancieri says it’s a given that animals and their owners face a certain amount of risk whenever they use a park where dogs are allowed to roam about freely and unleashed. But he says there are plenty of parks around where people do just that because they have limited access to open areas where their dogs can play.
By and large, he says, responsible dog owners are savvy enough to make the right decisions for their pets.
“Owners know whether their dog is going to be a good fit for a park or not,” he says.
The ordinance is one of two on the docket pertaining to animals tonight. Murray has also introduced a nonbinding resolution asking the council to support stiffer penalties enacted by state lawmakers for anyone convicted of abusing or neglecting an animal.
Baldelli-Hunt says she doesn’t know why the resolution doesn’t reference some specific legislative proposal in the General Assembly, as a resolution this specific normally would.
“As a city, we still have a lot of work to do and adjustments to make and changes that need to transpire from a legislative standpoint,” she said. “At the beginning of 2016, I wish we could have started off with some stronger issues than what we’re seeing on this docket.”