Ellicott Avenue resident calls dispatch about neighbor's dog going potty on their grass
City police are responding to a residence on Ellicott Avenue for a person complaining that "their neighbor's dog is using their lawn as a bathroom."
This counts as your 911 call for the year, next time your house better be on fire or someone is dying.
Whoever called the police is obviously frustrated and needs help. It is their property and they have the right to defend it. They did the right thing by calling the police before it escalated. I would advise you to keep that in mind, before slandering them. As for the dog owner, shame on you. You are clearly not responsible enough to own an animal. Grow up. Start being nice to others or everyone is going to think you are a... jerk. Maybe they already do.
Roberta, that was way harsh. Obviously you don't know what the word slander means, because no one, least of all Robert Radley has said anything remotely slanderous.
I think what he was implying was that perhaps our taxpayers' dollars for police protection can be put to better use than cases of responding to a complaint such as this one. Perhaps the neighbor could take up the issue constructively and civilly with the alleged offending party and their poo-ch.
Not everything we don't like should prompt a "call the cops" response. There are other peaceable means of solving conflict.
Billie. Loved the double entendre on poo-ch.
As for one of Howard's favorite cartoons, I couldn't make out the illustrator's name. but, it didn't appear to be Gary Larson. Which came as a surprise, to me. I have several books of The Far Side, and, never tire of his sense of humor.
Article I, Dog Control, Section 40-6 of the City Code: No person, being the owner of a dog shall not permit such dog, even though leashed, to do any of the following acts:
Enter public buildings, restaurants, stores or cemeteries, except Seeing Eye dogs properly trained to assist blind persons, when such dogs are actually being used by blind persons for the purpose of aiding them in going from place to place.
Damage or deface property not belonging to the owner of the dog.
Deposit waste or commit a nuisance on the private property of a person or party other than that of the owner of the dog.
The Dog Control Officer, in accordance with Subdivision 4 of Agriculture and Markets Law § 114, may issue an appearance ticket pursuant to the Criminal Procedure Law for any violation of this article.
The Dog Control Officer is the City Police.
Not allowed in restaurants ... when we were in San Diego I went with some friends to a brewery and several patrons had their dogs with them. Water was provided for the dogs.
One of my long-time favorite restaurants, Anthony's, at its La Mesa location now has a dog-friendly dining area next to their lake.
This is apparently quite the trend in California.
Billie, maybe the word "slander" wasn't appropriate, but did you even read my comment? I was talking about the dog owner, not Robert Radley. My "way harsh" comments were not directed at him. I do understand that the police are not meant to handle everything, but does anyone even know the circumstances involved here? I think calling the police is an appropriate response where necessary. It likely resolved this issue before there was any escalation. To protect and serve right?
I also think, Howard, that it depends on the circumstance and location. My sister has an ESA dog that is allowed in all public locations. I personally love when animals are allowed in public, so long as they are being cared for. I do think that people need to be more responsible pet owners in many cases. Animals have needs, and people have needs. I would expect that whoever made this police call, was having issues that could not be handled in another way. I am grateful that they called the police and asked for assistance. There are so many situations that this is necessary that many people care not to consider. What if this were a handicapped pet owner, who is being blamed by a landlord? What if this person was elderly and spent hours caring for their property, but cannot keep up with animal waste as well? What if this person has a mental health issue and can't bring themselves to confront a person? It is wonderful that we have a system where we can turn to for help, no matter how big or small. I am confident that our local task force is capable of handling any situation and has the means to do so. I am also confident that they are capable of deciding whether or not the call is necessary to be addressed immediately or suspended until all pertinent emergencies are handled.
" I am also confident that they are capable of deciding whether or not the call is necessary ..."
Actually, it doesn't work like that -- complaint received, police response.
How the individual officer decides to handle it once on scene is up to officer discretion. But you don't get to pick and choose which calls you respond to.
There's always a plus/minus to frivolous calls ... nobody in emergency services would say don't call if you perceive a problem, but that doesn't mean there aren't frivolous calls.
As for restaurants that welcome canine guests I've heard that Rochester Club West @ Bohn's has a dog menu so pet owners can enjoy a meal with their pet.
Roberta, of course I read your comment.
You wrote: "It is their property and they have a right to defend it....I would advise you to keep that in mind before slandering them."
The latter part of comment is aimed at critics OF the dog owner calling police -- like Robert Radley, to whom you were responding.
Thus, the word slander was used, incorrectly, which you seem to acknowledge. Why? Because his comment did not defame the character, etc., of the nameless dog owner, he simply took issue with the call in the first place.
Plus, slander is verbal; libel is written.
Enough of the English lesson.
When you say "I think calling the police is an appropriate response where necessary." Duh. No one is saying otherwise. What in this case constituted necessity is the unknown. I have no doubt it is within the scope of BPD's duties to handle the complaint, which is on the books and against the rules (thanks, C.M. for the book and verse), but that's not the point.
It is simply that too often people call 9-1-1 before they try to resolve issues without having to get the cops involved.
When you wrote, "It is simply that too often people call 9-1-1 before they try to resolve issues without having to get the cops involved.", did you mean like in the first 6 minutes in the video below? Was there a point where you think it would have been appropriate to call the police? Just wondering.
ESPECIALLY the part around 3:45 (with edited "replay" at 4:05)
How do you know the caller (or any other 911 caller) hasn’t tried to resolve the issue? Maybe this is an ongoing thing and today was the final straw.
The news item -in and of itself- really doesn't offer much to get worked up over. It begs more questions than it answers. Since the dog's owner isn't mentioned other than to identify the dog, one MIGHT ASSUME that the dog was unattended. That WOULD expand the level of concern beyond dog feces. We can only GUESS whether the dog is a Poodle or a Rottweiler, large or small, aggressive or friendly... This COULD be the first instance or the hundredth instance. We don't know if the dog was in the middle of a flower bed. We don't know if the complainant is cynophobic. We don't know if the complainant even knows who owns the dog; he/she MAY HAVE recognized the dog having seen it in the neighborhood on other occasions. SHOULD answers to these (and perhaps other) questions be forthcoming one MIGHT judge whether the involvement of authorities was frivolous or not. ...Or one might simply move on to the story about HP Hood LLC.
I'm tired of dog owners letting their animals do their business wherever they please,especially when it's on my property. Tired of running over dog sh*t in my yard w/ lawn mower,a real PITA to hose off from the tire treads so it doesn't smell my garage up,especially when I don't own one. Between the neighbor who lets their dog out and walks it on side where it deposits on my lawn,then the other neighbor who lets their rather large dog roam the neighborhood daily(he makes his rounds numerous times a day). The one that lets the large dog roam about is irresponsible-it's a matter of time before the dog causes an accident or gets hit. I used to own dogs years ago
.. bob I think you should call the police.....I'd draw the line at dog feces on my lawn mower and garage floor.. I'll even call them for ya.
Get over it Roberta. God, are you lazy as hell or what. Get a bag and pick it up. I do whether my dogs or not. Do you or your children or family members throw trash on people's lawns or out a car window. Oh am sure you will deny. I never ever ever do. filthy and disgusting and yeah...I pick my dogs poop up.. next?
I have had owners let their dogs walk inside my fence and poop on my sidewalk...get a bag and pick it up. I got my loser throwing trash in my yard ever day than animals pooping. Just don't care about the animals pooping. Really I pick up tons of trash every day
Your dog,your mess,your responsibility.What part of that is difficult?Other wise go tell a judge why you feel the law is not pertinent to you or your dog.
Someone Pinch Me!!!! I AGREE with Frank and Dave! Ed,, I watched a little of that video, no volume, but the jist of the matter was those "Fisherman" could have been a little more discreet. I mean they do autopsy every day, but a little kid should not have to view one?? As for the Dog,,,,I believe curbing is a violation of law. Who do you call, and how often, I cant answer that. Perhaps, a good aim and a Red Ryder BB gun MIGHT act as a deterrent?
Good afternoon, Thomas. I see where you said you watched "a little of that video" (with no volume). Clearly, your choice to do as you wish.
Had you watched the entire encounter, with audio, you might have gotten more than the "gist" of it.
The fishermen were minding their own business. Enjoying a day at the park. I'm assuming they were probably expecting a fairly quiet day. I highly doubt they expected to be "verbally attacked" by other park goers. (Side Note: Yes, the other park goers have the 1st Amendment right to free speech).
The (I'll just refer to them as the "verbal attackers") verbal attackers appeared (to me) to want to provoke some kind of confrontation. As for your statement that "... they do autopsy every day, but a little kid should not have to view one", THEY walked approximately 50 feet from their picnic table to "get something going". Now, I certainly could be wrong, but, my guess is that they sent their little girl over to start it. Again, I could be wrong, but, I doubt "most" little girls would walk 50 feet to confront two grown men. As I listened to the little girl's question/statement TO the (supposedly) strangers, I drew the conclusion that the parents had told her what to ask/say. Maybe not. I don't know.
As the "verbal attackers" were recording the entire incident, I firmly believe it was their express intention to "get something going". Well, in my opinion, they succeeded. IMO, they taught their children how to "act the fool" and how to disrupt other people's leisure activities. Oh, and how to "steal" someone else's property (as I believe the fish DID belong to the fisherman - I'm assuming he legally caught it, and, is entitled to keep it - one of the fishermen even alluded to the sign(s) allowing fishing).
As the video link was only a snippet of a "public freakout compilation", we can only see what the "verbal attackers" recorded. I tend to think that the one fisherman was on the phone, calling the police. Probably not because of the verbal assault, but, because his fish HAD been stolen. I do wish any involvement of the police had been included (if there was any). If that happened, maybe the children learned an important lesson. That you can't just go around stealing something that doesn't belong to you, without there possibly being consequences.
Ed, I don't know why I had no volume. I'm sure the cops would have asked the guys to please put the catch in a creel or bag. I live on a trout stream, so I`m "exempt" from that idea on my property. You are correct. They have the right to fish. The instigators should MTOB. No law broke, just common since. Didn`t Thomas Paine write a book by that name?
Lorie,"tons of trash every day", really,do you work for a refuse contractor,or were you being facetious? I can't believe Howard left your #19 up,probably ambiguous,as I'm sure you didn't intend to call Roberta "lazy as hell".
Actually, Frank, Lorie didn't call anyone "lazy as hell".
It was posed as a question (albeit missing punctuation).
Ed,exactly why I said unintentional.But without punctuation it can be misinterpreted.