A recent article - written by a very silly woman in Vancouver, about the possible impact of Nelson's no-dogs-downtown bylaw on tourism and flogged to the very silly National Post (NP) - had the usual, predictable result. In Nelson. Tourist-dry-up-alert! Yet some less impressed here may wonder if she had tried the Sun or Province first - more logical choices. After all - who reads the NP in the very west, and is that demographic likely to come to the Kootenays? So these less impressed here may say: Who cares! Let her first deal with the highest concentration of intravenous drug-users in any city of the Western world - at the same time - this city consistently touted as one of the most livable! That combo not keeping tourists away either!
Meanwhile At City Hall
Maybe twice in recent memory, the dog-bylaw - more specifically the Animal Regulation and Control Bylaw - has been run around the block, after the Nelson Star's publication of mail from - supposedly - out-of-towners, who were so deeply offended by not being allowed to bring Flopsie downtown, that they will never ever come back to bad, dog-hating Nelson.
No matter where it claims to come from: an e-mail like that could easily originate here, like - for instance - from the person who dumped dog-turds at the barricade, blocking access to the Dogwalk last spring - when it was totally flooded thus totally unsafe. Making dog-people's lives ever so inconvenient, by forcing them to find another place for Fido to dump. Possibly a more open, busier place where they might actually have to pick-up the turds. Bad City Hall!
Dog-people can be weird: like it stands to reason that people who claim a dog is man's best friend have social issues.
Whatever - this time it's a real article in a real newspaper, and Nelson's fragile ego is getting bruised big-time: They don't like me! I thought they like me!
So Councillor Kozak - in a spurt of energy fueled by righteous panic - connects with the business-people who say they believe (not know!) the downtown-dog-ban indeed hurts their business. Prompting Kozak to want dogs - again! - downtown pronto, by getting the topic on Council's agenda ahead of 6 other topics of seemingly lesser importance. Her aim: a trial run of dogs into downtown - come May to October. The more - the better!
She here appears to have a blind spot to the fact that bylaw-enforcement has been nearly non-existent for ages - aside from parking-issues downtown - because of chronic underfunding thus understaffing of the Bylaw Enforcement Department. And unless the City would put significantly more enforcement-personnel on the streets (early am to late pm) to enforce directly - particularly during busy summer months on Baker: we would end-up with a messier, smellier, more unsanitary and less inviting downtown - like any larger city. Heritage turds!
But a well-functioning enforcement/fine-structure would necessitate practically overnight wall-to-wall amendments and heaps of cash now to have it all in place well before the beginning of May. Even though it's unreasonable to want to infuse big money and lots more enforcement-personnel into a revamped dog-bylaw only. What about all others and finally enforcing them? Like snow-shoveling - taking place or not on the same sidewalks on which dogs would express themselves!
Local dog-owners have habitually ignored pertinent sections of their bylaw because they can (and will continue to do so): dogs are off-leash in Lakeside Park, on the beach, along the lakefront and on the soccer-fields. Dog-owners very frequently do not pick-up their dogs' turds in the park, along the lakefront, the Dogwalk and the Salmo Railway Trail - even though bags are provided for this. Dogs frequently can be seen downtown now.
The Star has no questions. Neither had the NP.
According to the same Star article: She said that city staff won't be going around clearing doggie doo off the sidewalk - that responsibility will fall to pet owners and business owners who are responsible for the sidewalks in front of their business.
I am deliberately writing about dog-turds because the pursed-lips doggie doo does not present a clear enough image of the problem. Making turds cute. Turds are not cute! I don't do cute!
Currently, the bylaw does not make business owners responsible for shoveling dog-turds in front of their businesses. This is solely up to the pets' owners!
The Star has no questions. Neither had the NP.
Store-keepers and relevant organizations have been largely uncreative when it comes to stimulating business. Just/still waiting for the money to roll in, ever since the initial shot in the arm in the 80s. Allowing dogs downtown again will not mean more money in the bank. An overly simplistic notion!
Same article: the business association is recommending bag dispensers be installed throughout the core.
More of the same simplistic: This - coupled with allowing dogs in the downtown core - will most certainly invite locals and area-residents to bring their dogs along to get their exercise out of the way that way, including the daily, much-anticipated dump! On Baker! But a turd not always being a turd - in terms of consistency - cleaning that up (how?) will not really leave the pavement-spot spotless. But legit! And convenient! And time-saving for those ever too busy for these 2 nuisance-components in their dogs!
Then there's the fire-hydrant factor. Dogs will mark and re-mark territories endlessly by urinating at/on anything anywhere. A bummer at any time - but particularly over periods of hot summer days without rain!
I don't know if Kozak is uninformed of the current bylaw-version, or if she is actually planning on bylawing store-owners to shovel turds.
Supposedly Council is not acting on the snow-shoveling problem because someone in Saskatchewan is currently challenging in court being told to shovel a stretch of sidewalk. Sooooo - shoveling snow is not enforceable but shoveling turds is?
Anyway, store-owners, beware of what you wish for: you may get it!
The Star has no questions. Neither had the NP.
Dogs in Stores, Restaurants
Picture a large and/or hyper dog or 2 in a busy store. Picture them getting acquainted in that sniffy accelerating circle-dance.
In a food-store? All the above, also getting into food-supplies. Sanitary issues.
In a restaurant? All of the above plus lying around, for busy waiters to trip over.
Parking Dogs
An alternative to endless, unpredictable store/restaurant-scenarios would be to tie-up the dog somewhere outside. In hot sun. Rain. The dog blocking busy foot-traffic by lying down or - getting restless from waiting - moving around as far as the leash will allow. Possibly a Rottweiler-don't-touch-me-stranger? Attacking someone because of the weirdness of its situation? Getting it on with another dog? Urinating at whatever it's tied to? Taking a dump?
Vicious Dogs
The current bylaw is explicit about keeping and moving vicious dogs in town. So, would these dogs be allowed in the core - in any of the above-mentioned locations/situations? Even a muzzled pitbull can cause considerable harm and mayhem. What about tourists bringing their vicious Daisy dog downtown - without a muzzle?
The Star has no questions. Neither had the NP.
NO DOGS DOWNTOWN!
I have given ample reasons why there should be no dogs downtown. All of them stacked-up point towards: introducing dogs to the core will have a negative effect overall, and word may just get to the NP that Nelson - ironically! - now is filthy-smelly because of dogs and their urine and their turds. Oops! Too late! And that Nelson - this time for sure and with good reason - definitely is not worth a visit any longer!
Allowing dogs downtown would have more of an impact through those of locals and area-residents than tourists: supposedly there are periodic voices in support of allowing dogs there. Has anyone asked these voices: why? The reason just may be that some feel they are not welcomed into City Hall's decision-making process - still, they want to be acknowledged as being there here. Somehow! A gluten-free tree-hugger making a statement: me and Buddy against the machine!
Tourists' voices? Not really! I mean, the only reason their dogs are on the table now is that silly article not being seen as what it is: a silly article. But pushing Kozak's buttons via the expecting to be taken care of business-folk. Smallville econo-politics.
How many times have we gone through this dog-thing - and why never based on objective research/reasoning/planning?
NO DOGS - PERIOD!
If people don't have enough time and energy and space for a dog to be a dog - the lack of any/all of these amounting to animal-cruelty - they shouldn't have a dog! This is probably - to varying degrees - the case with most dog-"owners", no matter how much they profess to love their doggie-woggie. Dogs - as individual creatures with individual needs - often aren't convenient. Even or particularly when left alone. And oh-how-cute-puppies grow - sometimes unexpectedly big! And demanding!
So, deal with what you got a dog into! On the dog's terms - not yours!
Dogs going shopping downtown? For a latte? Rarely!
I will look at some why-what-how of man and his best friend in the post to follow this one.
Fees And Fines
How strictly does the City follow its own licensing-rules, does it collect yearly licensing-fees? Fees and fines were set at least 10 years ago. It is time to bring them into today's economic reality - up them drastically! - which may fund some (not enough!) additional bylaw-enforcement but - more important! - stop many from getting a dog on a whim.
Finally: Tourist-Dogs!
Instead of - inadvertently - making Nelson's no-dogs-downtown policy seem hostile: turn this into an advantage and communicate it as such in advertising Nelson to potential visitors:
> Explain the positive aspects of a dog-free downtown - none of the above hassles - applying to tourists and locals alike.
> Offer free and conveniently close Parkade-parking and water to tourists with a dog to wait in the car - cool and comfy during hot summer days, sheltered during the cooler.
> Provide several emergency phone-numbers of local vets.
> Explain the total wonderfulness of and give directions to the Dogwalk: ideal for the tourist-dog! Running and swimming freely! How good is that!
> Explain that there is a dog-hotel downtown - hourly rates - as well as a high-end dog-stuff store, with a doggie-spa-experience on the premises. While Mummie does Baker.
Simple gestures like these turning Nelson into a decidedly we-do-dogs environment. Marketing 101!
While keeping Baker clean and (dog) hassle-free!
Nelson needs to accept what it has/hasn't, is/isn't - learning to deal with occasional criticism as necessary reality/identity checks. Building on all that through councillors - individually forming well-contemplated opinions - then coming together as Council. With the electorate as invited partners.
Instead of here making a quickie short-term decision, based on a spotty newspaper-report: which Council would customarily disdain (if perceived as negative) - so why not this time?
WOOF!
WOOF!
WOOF!
No comments:
Post a Comment