Badanai

Signature/Redhead & Chef

Sign. Minute Muffler

Signature Ad

Skyscraper Ad

Big Box

Opinion
Click here to see more
Subscribe

Community Calendar
Click here for full listings.

Poll
Should the City of Thunder Bay consider term limits for municipal politicians?



Total Votes: 95
View Results Past Polls

User Submitted Photo Gallery
Submit Your Own Photos
2012-04-19 at 17:49

LETTER: Neighbour says dogs are nuisance

By Don Skochinski
ENERGY 103 104Enter your Birthday Greeting here and Win a DQ frozen Birthday cake from Dairy Queen! Only on Your Station for 80’s 90’s and Now Energy 103 104 Click Here!

To the editor:

After reading your coverage of the dog issue in Neebing, I wanted to clear up some untrue and false statements being made to Neebing council at the April 18 meeting by the Linton/Lentz household on Memory Road and some quotes that were published this week.

The statement that only one resident of Pine Bay has complained about their eight dogs on a one acre cottage property is false.

Over 18 of 25 households on Memory Road have lodged this same complaint of being disturbed by their dogs since they arrived on the property last September. The dog owners are also aware of the mediation meeting by Neebing council members, attend by them and six representatives of a group of concerned cottage property owners that was put together by Neebing council.

While the problem dog owners on Memory Road would like to present themselves as reasonable, this is not the case in fact. When approached by residents immediately after the council meeting this week the true colours of Mr. Lentz were in full bloom.

When two residents on Memory Road approached him in a measured and respectful way to tell him his dogs are disturbing them, Mr. Lentz shouted, "You're a liar", and walked off. How is this the action of a reasonable person? During the previously mentioned mediation session one of their solutions was to debark their dogs.

Our group was uniformly horrified that someone would consider this butchery as a solution. I should note that our group does have dog owners. When does living in a rural environment mean that people can do what they want with no consequences. How exactly do you work sled dogs from a high density cottage property with one acre?

Owning a rural property or a cottage property does not mean you have carte blanche to do whatever you want and trodden on the peace, tranquility and sleep which your neighbours are entitled to. By laws are put in place to reflect how reasonable and responsible people get along with each other.

Specifically, this by law is about the issues surrounding the safety, the noise created by and the number of dogs that anyone would expect to encounter as a property owner and tax payer in Neebing.

This bylaw is before Neebing council because dozens of Pine Bay property owners are in pursuit of a tranquil enjoyment of their property, something they have not been able to do since September 2011.

There are serious concerns in Pine Bay regarding noise, safety and the proximity to a large number of dogs on a small piece of waterfront property. When you have eight dogs of which six are working sled dogs on chains kept out of doors, at all times, on a one acre piece of cottage property, you have an intolerable situation.

The safety issue of a dog or dogs coming off their tether on a small piece of land is a serious concern where people have children and grandchildren in Pine Bay.

Incidents of attacks, involving children by sled dogs, has been documented where people and sled dogs are in close association. This is a potential threat to public safety. Excessive barking is a problem.

A considerate and reasonable taxpayer should not be prevented from enjoying their property by any individual neighbours that are insensitive and unreasonable in their actions or by way of their inactions.

The action of inconsiderate neighbours is the issue before council which will need to be rectified. Dog owners and pet owners are not being persecuted nor are they the victims here, their neighbours are. I have heard the argument for council not to waste time and resources on creating by laws. Bylaws are not needed if and only if, people are reasonable, responsible and have consideration for their neighbours.Freedom does not mean it is your right to do what you want without consideration and regards for those around you.

Don Skochinski,
Thunder Bay

Click here to report a typo or error

Tbnewswatch.com(41)

Banner/Vector Construction

Comments

We've improved our comment system.
moonpie says:
I was with you up until you started the 'potential threat to public safety' nonsense. Cars on the road are a potential threat. A plane flying overhead, should it fall from the sky, is a potential threat. Any other dog in the area could potentially be a threat. Just because they have 8 dogs doesn't mean any of them are more or less a threat than the one dog that lives down the street. Get what I'm saying? You can live your life worrying about the "what if's" or you can live in reality.

That said, dogs are social animals that enjoy being amongst their "people". They require mental and physical stimulation on a regular basis. Now, these people may be great dog owners that do provide proper exercise and whatnot to their dogs, I don't know. But in this city when you see dogs chained in yards year round its a pretty good indication of the "type" of people you'll be dealing with.
4/19/2012 8:59:15 PM
bulldog says:
Why don't you try tackling the REAL problem at hand, which is not the number of dogs, but the way in which they are kept.

Life outdoors and stuck to a chain is no life for the domestic dog. This causes boredom (hence the noise) and aggression (which is a problem if they get loose which apparently they do). Try getting a bylaw passed to reduce the number of hours dogs can spend on a chain, or outside unattended in general.

There is no breed of dog that 'needs' to be outside 24/7 and if you don't want 8 dogs in your house then well... don't have 8 dogs.

Kennel licensing should exist for KENNELS - ie the puppymills that exist in Neebing.
4/19/2012 9:23:53 PM
Don Skochinski says:
I appreciate the comments Moonpie. There was an incident where only recently two huskies attacked and bit an adult pedestrian in Neebing. The owner appeared and stated " my dogs are friendly" as the victim escaped into a ditch. To my understanding the person called the OPP but stopped short of laying a charge. What would happen if this was a child? Anytime you have a sled dog attack involving a child, the consequences are sometimes fatal. You can research this on line if you wish. Memory Road and any lakefront property in Neebing will have young vulnerable children on it. No one needs to experience a tragic event. Prevention is an issue in this case.
4/20/2012 3:01:54 PM
karma says:
I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but implying that these dogs are child killers is a bit of a stretch. You choose to live in the woods. Are you going to get rid of all the bears, wolves, coyotes, heck, even deer in rut because people choose to bring kids out there? Those huskies have been raised with children and are not aggressive. These alaskan type huskies are known to be extremely good with people. I'd be more worried about a little dog biting my kid.
That aside,I do agree the lot is too small, they shouldn't be chained, etc. It's not how I would house my dogs. But the bottom line is that this is a dispute between neighbors and dragging the whole township in is a bit much. Settle this with the OPP, Humane Society or whoever but stop trying to impose bylaws on the whole township.
4/20/2012 3:58:00 PM
Don Skochinski says:
Karma, I hear you. Most of us are reasonable, I agree with you and would treat dogs better than chaining them outdoors 24/7. These people have run their animals on the roadway which everyone uses, harnessed up to a pickup truck creating a traffic hazard. This is not the place.
Sled dogs have caused deaths where children have been exposed to them in close proximity. For example, in March 2010 a four year old was mauled to death by sled dogs in Nunavut, Huskies killed a three week old baby in St. Hyacinthe in June 2010 and most recently a baby boy was killed by a sled dog in Calgary this spring. Prevention does not harm anyone. The Pine Bay residents that have expressed concern are focused on these one acre lots on the waterfront. We understand the concerns of reasonable pet owners and animal lovers such as yourself in Neebing.I appreciate your input.
4/20/2012 4:41:02 PM
bulldog says:
You do realize that it isn't because of their 'job' ie. sled dogs that these unfortunate events occurred, right? If that were the case, sled-dog businesses would never survive, what with the huskies being baby-killers and all.

Why were those babies left alone unattended with ANY dog? That is the fault of the parents, not the dogs.

Again, you should fight for tougher animal cruelty laws. Life on a chain, unsocialized with humans or other animals, is cruel and creates dangerous dogs no matter what the breed.
4/21/2012 10:12:15 AM
SG says:
They run their animals on the roadway, so what? Go around... it's not the harbour expressway.

Unfortunately Don, it sounds as though no solution other than being rid of the dogs would work for you.

4/21/2012 10:29:45 AM
JennieK says:
I thought the real issue was that a bylaw about dog kennels pertaining to all of Neebing. If this is a one case situation, why punish everyone in Neebing? It sounds to me like you are targeting this family. The municipality should not be involved. If the dogs are an issue, then call the Humane Society or the OPP.
4/20/2012 4:59:42 PM
Long123 says:
Did these people know before they bought land in cottage country that there were rules and regulations regarding the cottagers rights? Perhaps there should be an application process before you buy land in Neebing, so cottagers can weed out the unwanted folks of waterfront properties if they don't fit their personal standards. When did waterfront property become exclusive to only one status of people?
4/20/2012 7:01:33 PM
wayne says:
what a whiny cry-baby. "dozens of Pine Bay property owners" by dozens do you mean two, three, four, ten? i think you are the liar.
4/20/2012 11:34:10 PM
wayne says:
"Over 18 of 25 households on Memory Road have lodged this same complaint of being disturbed by their dogs"

over 18? does that mean 19, 20, 21, etc? what a joke you are dude.
4/20/2012 11:37:12 PM
wayne says:
"The statement that only one resident of Pine Bay has complained about their eight dogs on a one acre cottage property is false."

given your letter, it sounds to me like you are the lead (lone) dog that is whining?
4/20/2012 11:41:48 PM
Stephernova says:
I agree with karma. Living out on Memory Road, I RARELY have come in contact with other dogs, but have seen MANY wild animals. If dogs are this much of a concern for you, I think you need to re-evaluate your property location. You are SURROUNDED by other WILD animals!!! Honestly, I don't think the dogs are the ones behaving inappropriately here...
4/21/2012 12:15:53 AM
wayne says:
so Don, your issue is one of safety to children (rare events) and not nuisance (ie. barking)?
4/21/2012 12:47:33 AM
areu4real says:
Don, you should be on the Simpson’s - "would someone please think of the children" - seriously, how many direct neighbors to this property actually have children? You State “Anytime you have a sled dog attack involving a child, the consequences are sometimes fatal. You can research this on line if you wish. Memory Road and any lakefront property in Neebing will have young vulnerable children on it. No one needs to experience a tragic event. Prevention is an issue in this case.” Did you know that drowning is the 2nd most common injury-related death for Canadian Children 14 and under and that 37% of all incidents happen in streams, Lakes, and ponds? So, if child safety is really what is important here, I would suggest you move! Living on lakefront property with young vulnerable children is not a responsible decision for you or anyone else if “prevention of a tragic event” concerning your children or grandchildren is your priority. You can research this online if you wish!
4/21/2012 8:39:20 AM
areu4real says:
Don, I hope Neebing council reads your quote “This bylaw is before Neebing council because dozens of Pine Bay property owners are in pursuit of a tranquil enjoyment of their property”. Do you really think that “dozens”, (30 at the most) should be dictating how the remaining 2214 residents in Neebing live their lives? That’s the problem with this whole situation; council is entertaining the minority, when they should be informing you that we have current by-laws and provincial laws governing all your complaints. As for the noise, isn’t there a provincial noise law from 11pm to 7am? That’s if there are any proven cases of these dogs barking all night. As stated “The action of inconsiderate neighbors’ is the issue before council which will need to be rectified”. You are the inconsiderate neighbor that you’re taking about here, right? Stop wasting council’s time, the resident’s time, and just let people get on with their lives. The Geese in the bay make more noise than the 6 dogs!
4/21/2012 9:03:30 AM
Don Skochinski says:
Wayne, I appreciate your concern about dogs and dog ownership, so am I. The Linton/Lentz household have stated that no complaints have been made with regard to their dogs. When 18 out of 25 households on Memory Road,note the percentage, have made a complaint it is not "whining" as you put it, you comment is unfair and mean spirited. There is no need to belittle people with legitimate concerns. A concerned group from Pine Bay contacted the Mayor and members of council when this first came up on mass. There is no one household as the Linton/Lentz household has again misrepresented in the press. There are other areas in Neebing where dog noise is also issue. Talk to your councillors and get their take on this to get a sense of the issues. I take offense with your "liar" charge as it is not based on anything. Thanks for the comments, however, but get more information if you are sincerely interested.
4/21/2012 9:54:41 AM
Don Skochinski says:
4real, you bring up some good points and I appreciate you quoting me accurately. Hoever, would question your interpretation. The safety concerns I referred to are about the proximity of sled dogs to people in high density areas. You talk about water safety, a legitimate concern but we are not talking about water safety. When our group approached Neebing politicians it was because of the issues on small one acre lakefront properties that impacted on us, the majority of residents. Council is going to have to deal with S1 and S2 properties and the number of dogs on them. Considerate neighbours keep their dogs quiet fellow cottagers can enjoy tranqill days and sleep at night. The majority of us on Memory Road would love to "get on with their lives",as you say and enjoy quiet nights. Council can be doing lots of other things and if these 6 sled dogs were relocated on a more appropriate property, I am sure they could. Freedom does not that mean dog owners can do what ever they want.
4/21/2012 10:22:13 AM
areu4real says:
OK Don, my last post regarding your ridiculous letter. Do some research, in the Neebing Meeting Minutes from Dec 21, 2011 you’ll see there is still discussion about the noise by-law, to which all concerned parties were present. This is from the same minutes: Leash By-law, council indicated that they did not wish to pursue at this time. Curious, if you are so concerned about safety, why didn’t you pursue a leash by-law over a noise by-law? Tell the truth, you don’t agree with someone’s lifestyle or their pets – and yes, they are pets even though they are on a chain. Just because a pet owner elects to keep their pet on a chain doesn’t mean that they are not “reasonable pet owners and animal lovers”. Don’t let your personal judgment cloud the truth in this matter, as a rural resident I would be more concerned about the loose Bears and Wolves as their populations have been climbing and they have been know to maul and kill.
4/21/2012 10:47:23 AM
Don Skochinski says:
Hi Wayne. The content of the letter to the editor covers all the issues we as a group have brough up to Neebing council - noise, safety - you will note the barking issue is referred to. The safety issue is a concern, as well. I did not appreciate the demeaning " whinny baby and liar" comments. You can dialogue better than that, really!
4/21/2012 11:00:39 AM
areu4real says:
Don, stop digging - you are going to bury yourself! I'm not talking water safety, I merely looked it up online as you stated and found “that drowning is the 2nd most common injury-related death for Canadian Children 14 and under”, so unless you are going to tell me that the number one cause is Death by Sled Dog, then you missed the whole point! As you state “The safety concerns I referred to are about the proximity of sled dogs to people in high density areas”. How do you gauge Memory Road as a high density area, what’s the human to acreage ratio – not enough to consider it a “high density” area. Did you know that you could have 6 dogs in the City of Thunder Bay? That would be more of a “high density” area than rural lakefront property. Let me know how you make out with the City of Thunder Bay council as you try to amend their by-laws for the sake of the children’s safety. You keep speaking of noise – that issue has been resolved!
4/21/2012 11:08:29 AM
wayne says:
nice try Don...but your letter does not address specifics in terms of the numbers. what do you mean by 'dozens'? also is it 18 out of 25 or over 18 out of 25 as you state in your letter? is it safety of children or barking nuisance?
4/21/2012 3:37:56 PM
Don Skochinski says:
4Real.. you brought up water safety perhaps to dismiss or diminish my point, I was talking about 6 sled dogs on a waterfront property. I get your concern about children, on that we agree. Safety is an issue where people and sled dogs live so close together, that was my point. Do you see any one in Thunder Bay operating sled dogs from a city property? Thunder Bay has a workable by law, unfortunately Neebing needs some work. Since you are concerned on these issues, look up the Kenora by laws and observe how intense this document is. Use the internet to track the data I presented to Karma in the reply above and enlighten yourself about children and sled dog/husky interaction. Prevention does not harm anyone. Memory Road cottage area is certainly a higher density area than agricultural area in Neebing. Rent a cottage with 6 sled dogs chained up next door and see how much sleep you get. What is your burying reference? You lost me there.
4/21/2012 4:03:12 PM
Don Skochinski says:
4 Real - Another point.... Why is it important for you to dismiss me with calling my letter ridiculous? I have accurately corrected statements made in print and the press with those on public record. I have talked to council and the township to ensure that my facts are correct and my motivation was the mistatement of others professing to be truthful.You can't pass off your opinion as fact when it is not the case. Some people have attempted to marginalize some of the concerns with incorrect statments. You can have whatever opinion you want but facts are just that. THe number of dogs on lakefront property, the noise and safety issues are the concerns. Imagine if someone were to tie up six sled dogs outside your residence 24/7 ..it would be none too satisfying. It is important to understand there are two sides to a situation. Showing some common respect would be appreciated.
4/21/2012 4:20:40 PM
SG says:
Don you have a point. So maybe you can answer some questions for those of us who aren't involved.

What was tried by all the neighbours including the dogs' owners?

Was this originally a barking issue? Other noise issue?

I understand there are concerns about the quality of life for the dogs, how are they living?
4/22/2012 9:28:21 AM
Crudge says:
Just finished reading all the comments. From memory I believe council has 38 various complaints in a short period of time relating to dogs whether it be quantity or noise or whatever. I believe council is trying to solve too many issues with one bylaw and at the meeting I was unsure of a solution. After some thought, eliminating some outright lies, I have come to the conclusion that the solution is centered around proximity and distance to some extent. At a meeting with council we proposed that zoning would need to be put into the change of the existing bylaw however council had been advised that the only way a full solution could cover councils concerns was to replace the existing bylaw with this new one. Hence the uproar.
So having said this, hopefully the changes, if any, will be relative to zoning. One acre on lakefront property is just too small for 8 dogs, for noise, for the life of the dogs, for peaceful use of property.
4/21/2012 7:01:19 PM
Crudge says:
Just finished reading all the comments. From memory I believe council has 38 various complaints in a short period of time relating to dogs whether it be quantity or noise or whatever. I believe council is trying to solve too many issues with one bylaw and at the meeting I was unsure of a solution. After some thought, eliminating some outright lies, I have come to the conclusion that the solution is centered around proximity and distance to some extent. At a meeting with council we proposed that zoning would need to be put into the change of the existing bylaw however council had been advised that the only way a full solution could cover councils concerns was to replace the existing bylaw with this new one. Hence the uproar.
So having said this, hopefully the changes, if any, will be relative to zoning. One acre on lakefront property is just too small for 8 dogs, for noise, for the life of the dogs, for peaceful use of property.
4/22/2012 9:59:15 AM
areu4real says:
Don, you have accurately corrected statements – curious why there is no proof about all this excessive noise and all night barking? Back that statement up, show me where there has been an investigation or a charge laid, or tell everyone how many nights in the past 4 months have these dogs kept you awake? Council members visited the properties and admitted that they witnessed no barking - fact. You state “When approached by residents immediately after the council meeting this week the true colours of Mr. Lentz were in full bloom. When two residents on Memory Road approached him in a measured and respectful way to tell him his dogs are disturbing them, Mr. Lentz shouted, "You're a liar", and walked off”. Were you there when this took place? You know, 2 sides to every story, I’ve heard a witness account to this interaction and it’s not what you are trying to portray in you letter. If you were not present, then you’re not presenting an accurate and correct statement.
4/22/2012 12:48:25 PM
areu4real says:
Don, don’t forget, Neebing is a rural area with a population of 2200 people with no city amenities – not even a corner store! Now Kenora (pop 56K) and Thunder Bay (pop 100K) on the other hand are both Urban Residential Cities neither of which Neebing should be compared to nor modeled after. We can both search the internet all day and both will find communities or cities that have stricter dog kennel bylaws and we will also find communities or cities that have more lenient or sometimes non existent dog kennel bylaws. The dog kennel by-law currently in place in Neebing deals with Dog Kennels, which is what it’s intended to do, and therefore should be left as is. There is no need to waste tax payers money amending by-laws that already protect the residents in Neebing from having a dog kennel operate on land that is not zoned Agricultural. Check out Thunder Bay’s definition of a kennel, 237.1.7 (which you state as “a workable by-law”) – pretty much the same as Neebings current by-law.
4/22/2012 12:49:02 PM
areu4real says:
Last one for you Don, we can go back and forth all day long discussing this issue, and neither side will sway from their point of view. I would caution using statements like “I have accurately corrected statements made in print and the press with those on public record” unless you have witnessed these events personally or have a credible source. Just to clarify the truths for all those that are reading this thread: How many nights have you been personally affected by these dogs barking? How many times have you personally witnessed these dogs loose or un-tethered? What potential threat to public safety have you personally witnessed since these dogs arrived? Stop classifying Sled Dogs as a “potential threat to public safety” or “child killers”, do you actually know how many Mushers and dogs live in the Thunder Bay region? More than you think, and I have yet to hear of any mauled or killed children!
4/22/2012 12:51:17 PM
Det John Kimble says:
Sounds like neebing council has their hands full, full and all but tied. Unless neebing council has clear direction from neebing bylaws, which i think they do not have , this is a neighbour versus neighbour issue. There will be no solution.
I can foresee a litigious situation!
4/22/2012 4:41:12 PM
Don Skochinski says:
4 Real. You can have all the opinion you want but why don't you call the council, administration and the mayor of Nebbing about the dog complaints and come back and publicly state that no one has complained? Go work on that and see what you come up with.
4/22/2012 5:11:44 PM
Don Skochinski says:
SG. A short history.
September last year 6 sled dogs installed on cottage property of approximately .9 acres on Memory Road. Owners left for the weekend leaving the dogs barking day and night ( all night)for about two days with no food or water. Neighbours complained to council. Council realized this very odd situation and tried to mediate bringing the two sides together. No solutions were arrived at to the satisfaction of either side. By laws for noise and the number of dogs had been tabled by Neebing council to attempt to correct this from happening in the future. Dog owners state that because there is not by law they can have the sled dogs on this property. Neighbours contend lakefront property of this size with proximity to others is too small for the number of dogs. Call council or administration staff at Neebing and get this comfirmed.
4/22/2012 5:35:11 PM
bulldog says:
and again... what does that have to do with the number of dogs? If that did indeed happen, it is cruelty. Call the humane society. The number of dogs is irrelevant - there are plenty of good dog owners who have multiple dogs and you would never know it.

Any dog, even if it is only one or two, left outside all day and night bored to death will bark. So I will say it YET AGAIN as you keep ignoring this..... try limiting the number of hours a dog can spend outside on a chain unattended. Try calling the proper authorities (ie the thunder bay and DISTRICT humane society - neebing is included) if you feel there is neglect (leaving for the weekend with no food/water is neglect.)

Think about the consequences of this. Say a legislation does pass to limit the number of dogs someone has - will those who break it have their dogs seized and killed? Are you prepared to deal with the death of innocent animals? If they are denied a kennel license, what are they supposed to do?
4/23/2012 12:08:54 PM
SG says:
One quick hint: if you click 'reply to this comment' it's much easier to follow the conversation.

So this began because of the owners leaving the dogs for a weekend. Did no one contact TBDHS? That would seem the proper route to me.

Are the dogs outside all the time unattended and barking? I ask this because bulldog has a point: why not limit how the animals live ie outside all the time?

What solutions were attempted by both sides at mediation?
4/24/2012 10:58:34 AM
ALK says:
Don just a quick and easy question.....How did you know they left the dogs without food and water for two days?
4/23/2012 12:19:00 PM
DocRiver says:
Well folks, we have to admit we live in a democracy. Sometimes outcomes favor our ideas, sometimes outcomes favor opposite ideas. So Memory Lane residents - create a ballot - take a vote and let the needs of the many come before the needs of the few - either way, you don't need bylaws, police, the Supreme Court > just a little common sense.

If you are the interloper, Jack London's "Call of the Wild", the Klondike gold rush were soul beckoning for any "Musher". If you truly are passionate about dog sledding, the Yukon has it all > It's the ideal setting.

On the other hand, if you find yourself in need of earplugs > then this milieu will never relinquish the serenity, tranquility and ambience you seek and will eat at you like a cancer. You should make plans to transition to a new setting > you only live once.

Democracy is what we teach our children, isn't it?
4/23/2012 12:48:33 PM
sg-girl says:
Don, do yourself a favour and drop the "sled dogs have caused child deaths" bit - so have MANY other breeds of dogs. Generally in these situations, it is the fault of the owner and not the dog (but it's easier to blame the breed and ban them than to lay criminal charges on the owner for negligence I suppose). Stick to the real issue. All parties directly involved need to stop airing their dirty laundry in public - your quarrel is now impacting an entire community. Proud of yourselves? Maybe instead of contacting Council the neighbours should have contacted the PROPER authorities for such complaints i.e. the Humane Society to investigate the care and condition of the dogs or the OPP to report the dogs getting loose and posing a safety threat. If the concern is the # of dogs to property size, shouldn't THIS be the by-law in question??? Many of us do have multiple dogs and live on much more than a 1-acre waterfront lot with few (if any) neighbours. Why should we be penalized too?
4/23/2012 2:35:05 PM
hillbilly says:
Don I do believe that my neighbor and I have come to the solution you and your obviously well off seasonal cottagers pull out your cheque books everyone has their price as proved by some on council. Buy them out and then move in who you want in fact buy all of the property and you will have 100% control. I am not being disrespectful or rude I am offering a solution.
Don I really think RBC would be willing to finance your private sandbox and then you can keep out all the neighborhood kids that you do not like.
4/24/2012 9:09:15 AM
really?? says:
sounds like a bunch of old bitties.
Don - I agree with alot of what you are saying. The safety issue is a VALID concern. Someone made a comment that huskies are good with children - they are.....THEIR OWN (meaning their own family) These are working dogs - they are not family pets. Try this - let all 6 of them off their leads at the same time - throw in the 3 children that they have and the pug and retriever or lab they said they have. Not let's see the safety concern. He should know better - board the dogs. Does the Pug and the other one live outside too?? NO - because they are family pets. AreUforReal quote: "do you actually know how many Mushers and dogs live in the Thunder Bay region? More than you think, and I have yet to hear of any mauled or killed children!" Who cares how many mushers live in the REGION....Do they live in Neebing, do they take proper care of them, are they housed properly, and do they bother their neighbours??? Have they mauled children?
4/25/2012 2:44:03 PM
really?? says:
con't
Have they mauled any children? NO - Because when you take your children dogsledding at a local dogsledding outfit - the owners / handlers are always present. That has been my experience anyhow. I don't know if these dogs bark continuously, but I did see proper housing for them - not doghouse and a chain. The real issue here is supposed to be the noise - The smart thing for these homeowners would have been to nip it in the bud at the first complaint - could have avoided this whole issue. Good Luck
4/25/2012 3:04:48 PM
Comments for this story are semi-moderated. Read our comment guideline.

Add a new comment.
You must log in to add comments.
Create a new account
Forgot password?
Log In