Direct from Councillor Lulham: Dog Run News

Ran into Councillor Lulham yesterday with her two mini-poochitos. While our conversation covered topics from the Easter Bunny and how her no-show to my generous invitation to tour the dog run in the company of some of its more avid-goers meant that I simply ate the chocolate she might have had herself. Does this make sense? Phew! Here are the highlights:

• the arena will stay as is for another year. While the digging will begin at the pool end at the end of the summer, the pals are to keep the arena for the next hockey season, meaning that the demolition of the current structure won't happen until next summer. Maybe. So no plans in place for the dog run at the moment.
• the snow fences are supposed to have been put back at Lansdowne - as a temporary measure - are they?
• in terms of more permanent fencing, the plan is to install 5' steel fences - the same as the private soccer field - around the dog runs. This will start at Murray Hill on the lower fence - with one section installed at a time. Not clear whether the "at a time" refers to seasons or years or weeks. Also not clear when the first one would appear.
• apparently there is a bit of a rush on in terms of setting up a new dog body in Westmount;  maybe to take over the existing Westmount Dog Owner's Association, or start a Summit association, or have a dog run group. Her plan is to invite all interested parties to council, and then invite them to organize, vote, install members etc., Then she has one point of liaison with concerned dog persons.

What do you think?

Status on dog run review?

You may remember that in the April 12 edition of the Westmount Independent there was an Editor's note stating that Councillor Lulham and city horticulturist  Savaria were going to check out the fences at the Lansdowne dog run. Having heard nothing since then, I am going to check in with Councillor Lulham to see where we are.

Lobbying Scandal in Westmount?

Most interesting  - the validity of a poll, conducted last spring by Ipsos Decarie  gauging public opinion in Westmount on the proposed arena project, has come under question almost a year by some Westmounters later as the story of a private school's interventionist social media outreach initiative has come to light.

Turns out that at the same time - in fact during - the timeframe of the Ipsos Decarie telephone survey to Westmount residents, Selywn House sent a mass emailing to over 2000 recipients - requesting said recipients to respond favourably to the proposed arena project should they be asked of course.

So is it possible that some of the less than 2500 respondents, 80 some percent of whom were in favour of the project, might have been influenced as a result of the contents of that email? Welcome to the world of power lobbying - and where better than in this microcosm of political hand to hand combat over issues like grass vs artificial surfaces, to Bixi or not to Bixi -   that is Westmount? Check out www.westmountwatch.org for the story of this story.

And now. for the picture of the day...We thought that spring was here and that hats were a thing of closets past! Clearly not. To see the sequence, take a look at the flickr sidebar. Especially for this total and absolute focus on his face as he looks down at the hat as Cathy is admonishing him from above.

Murdoch just can't resist a hat.....

Today's Westmount Independent

Note of interest: Has anyone seen Councillor Lulham at the run to check the gates or the ground or the fences?

Also - amazing but true: as of today,  less than 700 dog licences have been issued for 2011.  I'd hate to overestimate the number of dogs in Westmount, but I feel confident there are at least twice that number.

Why are there so few licences? And, where does the money go from the licences already issued?

Ed Vickery's Letter to the Editor

To be published in this week's Westmount Independent.


Opinion

Dogs are animals, without any of the social morays that restrict humans from acting on their first impulses. Our own dog is a gentle giant. He wants to be patted by all passersby and he wants to sniff all dogs. He will pull to get close to other dogs and if the other owner appears willing, we let them meet. This is almost always a friendly encounter. There is, however, a 1% chance that for whatever reason He hates the other dog and an out of character reaction occurs. This is common among canines and is easily managed as the reaction is apparent from a hundred feet away and the leashed animals are kept well away from each other. If this reaction happens at a dog run the animals are probably much closer to each other, the second dog has yet to enter, and the approaching dog is led away by their owner. The other dog is theoretically confined by the fence.

On April 6 at Lansdowne dog run a large dog took offence to a smaller dog being walked on the path just outside. Barking started and the large dog ran to the fence easily putting front paws on the top of the fence. Both owners reacted immediately. The inside owner ran towards his dog and the outside owner turned around and left at speed. Perhaps this triggered a chase response I don’t know, but the large dog jumped the fence and raced after the smaller dog to attack, knocking down the smaller dog’s owner in the process. I was inside the dog run close the where the two dogs were engaged. I stepped over the fence and pulled the large dog off of the smaller one within seconds of the first contact. The large dog owner arrived immediately after to take charge of his animal. If I had hesitated to consider the possible outcomes for me I might not have done it but I sustained no injury. Our dog watched from the sidelines. The large dog received a gash between the eyes and I don’t know if the smaller dog was injured physically ( I don’t remember seeing blood) but he was scared, slipped out of his collar and ran away. Both owners and others who were at the dog run went searching for the dog. Westmount Public Security was alerted and officers joined the search . I contacted Public Security the next day to see if it had been found but they had no information.

The incident would not have happened two days before because of the 4 foot snow fence. The large dog would not have been able to put paws on top of the fence and a rickety fence is much more daunting for an animal to contemplate jumping than a solid one of the same size. While the snow fence would have prevented all this trauma, it is not the answer. Dogs jump out of the dog runs all the time for a variety of reasons, the hated squirrels is our dog’s prime motivation. If a dog wants out and the fence is only 27 and 1/8 inches high in some places, a motivated teacup Chihuahua could jump the fence at Lansdowne. I stepped over it with ease.

The issue of the low fences was brought to Westmount City Council more than four years ago and repeatedly since then. The April 6th incident further illustrates how important it is to have proper fences around all dog runs, and how the Council has let these dogs down. Instead of fixing the problem, Council members have repeatedly minimised, obfuscated or ignored the issue. Does a dog owner have to be killed trying to retrieve their dog from Lansdowne or St. Catherine St. before council will act. (The death of a dog would probably not be enough.) It took a death on Strathcona to make council act on truck safety. Council has plenty of time to work on the arena project for the 910 hockey players (2009) at a cost of more than $40000 per player. I think you will find that dog owners outnumber hockey players by a considerable margin. It would take less tan 5 players worth to secure the dog runs with tasteful PAC compliant fencing. You could even afford wireless security cameras to allay any concerns about undesirables hiding behind a 6 foot fence. Council, do your duty to serve and protect .

Sincerely, 


Ed Vickery, Argyle Ave.