It's a doggie dog world

POMEROY–Community members Sue Nelson and Gail Turner, spoke to the council regarding the issue of allowing people to walk their dogs on city property. Nelson has examined Ordinance Number 672 of the Pomeroy Municipal Code as well as Washington State RCW 9.08.010, which addresses allowing vicious dogs to run at large and RCW 16.08.040, which places liability on the owner of any dog which bits a person on public property or legally on private property.

In a letter presented to council members she referenced these and local statutes already on the books: 6.04.115, requiring dogs to be leashed; 6.04.135, animal sanitation in public places is the responsibility of the owner; and 6.04.136, civil penalties for stray dogs and other animals not under control and running loose. She stated that the full ordinances are very specific and according to the letter her feeling is that “making more rules likely will not make a difference in the possible complaints received.” Nelson said the ordinance already in place seems workable,” and “I’m thinking we have more of a people problem than a dog problem.” She expressed her frustration that residents might be punished for what others are doing.

If the council decides city properties are to be regulated, Nelson recommended making a leash optional area on Geiger Gulch west from 1st Street, allow access to the golf course perimeter in the early morning hours in the off-season, and allow dogs on the paved blacktop in the city park at 15th Street and Arlington as well as the pocket park on Main Street for the convenience of travelers and public restrooms.

Nelson thought overnight camping without regulation contributes to the dogs running loose and camping near public city property may need to be regulated. She pointed out there are two locations to park an RV in Garfield County. The letter concluded by saying if the council would like donations for a dog bag kiosk, there are two dog owners that would pay if the council decides that would help.

The Mayor presented options to the council and pointed out the city already has a separate ordinance which addresses dogs at the cemetery. He suggested that the Park Committee “make a few minor changes to existing statutes” and present them at the meeting in March.