Dog lives matter

[Lee Chowaniec]

In another thread, an individual asked:

I would like a full explanation as to how the monies gathered from dog licensing and fines are distributed.

AGM - Agriculture & Markets
Article 7 - (106 - 124) LICENSING, IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF DOGS
110 - License fees.

1. The license fee for dog licenses issued pursuant to subdivision one of section one hundred nine of this article shall be determined by the municipality issuing the license, provided that the total fee for an unspayed or unneutered dog shall be at least five dollars more than the total fee for a spayed or neutered dog. All revenue derived from such fees shall be the sole property of the municipality setting the same and shall be used only for controlling dogs and enforcing this article and any rule, regulation, or local law or ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, including subsidizing the spaying or neutering of dogs and any facility as authorized under section one hundred sixteen of this article used therefore, and subsidizing public humane education programs in responsible dog ownership.

Comments

NYS surcharge - $1 sprayed / neutered, $3 unaltered. And shall be used only for controlling dogs.

Except for the surcharge all licensing fees go to the municipality. In Lancaster, the Clerk’s office collects the licensing fees and submits them to the Supervisor’s office. Where in other municipalities the fees go into the Dog Control Department budget, in Lancaster the fees collected go into the General Fund.

There has been a decrease in licenses issued this year. There has been an increase in court appearance tickets for unlicensed dogs and other violations. Yet frequent dismissals (even when cited residents fail to appear in Court) occur, court revenues are down, and violators go unpenalized because of weak enforcement policies. Residents hear of this and take the position why should I bother licensing my dog. As a result how many dogs go rabbi unvaccinated and are a threat to the public?

A dog census has not taken place in years. One was promised several years ago and has not taken place. There are 5,600 dogs register in Lancaster. It is conservatively estimated that there are another 6,000 unregistered dogs. In Lancaster – Town and Villages.

Near half of September is over and still no shovel in the ground to construct the new dog shelter. I would hope Dog Control Committee Chair Wozniak would give a report at this coming town board meeting on status of construction date and estimated occupancy date.

Dogs, department staffing, and residents deserve better.

[mark blazejewski]

In another thread, an individual asked:

I would like a full explanation as to how the monies gathered from dog licensing and fines are distributed.

AGM - Agriculture & Markets
Article 7 - (106 - 124) LICENSING, IDENTIFICATION AND CONTROL OF DOGS
110 - License fees.

1. The license fee for dog licenses issued pursuant to subdivision one of section one hundred nine of this article shall be determined by the municipality issuing the license, provided that the total fee for an unspayed or unneutered dog shall be at least five dollars more than the total fee for a spayed or neutered dog. All revenue derived from such fees shall be the sole property of the municipality setting the same and shall be used only for controlling dogs and enforcing this article and any rule, regulation, or local law or ordinance adopted pursuant thereto, including subsidizing the spaying or neutering of dogs and any facility as authorized under section one hundred sixteen of this article used therefore, and subsidizing public humane education programs in responsible dog ownership.

Thank you for the information Mr. C.

In Lancaster, the Clerk’s office collects the licensing fees and submits them to the Supervisor’s office. Where in other municipalities the fees go into the Dog Control Department budget, in Lancaster the fees collected go into the General Fund.

So, if I understand you correctly Lee, the monies in Lancaster do not go specifically and fully to the Animal Control Office, but are possibly used to fund other Lancaster Departments or expenses?

Also, this designated and covered expense item is interesting, eh?

...any facility...

[Frank Lee Blunt]

As usual Lee, you have pointed out another abnormality of the Ruffino administration. Whereas most level headed individuals, in the leadership of a municipality that has a dog facility that needs dearly to be modernized and upgraded to fit a growing population of both citizens and their pet, would automatically use these newly gotten funds toward any costs involved in such an upgrade to save the citizens money and be able to afford an even more robust outcome.
I am sure your estimates of the dog population numbers in the town and village are close if not a bit light. I would also suggest that Mr. Wozniak is about to be in the spotlight again as the election comes closer and closer. His complete disregard to the health and welfare of animals many people consider their real family members will come back to haunt him, that and his covering up for Danny Amatura.
I wonder if he even dug deep enough to know these valuable funds were available to make the dog facility the best it could be. Instead, he and the lazy town engineer twiddled their thumbs as time ran out. They bungled the entire process from start to the vote to move forward.
Dog owners are going to KNOW who Mr. Wozniak and his family and relatives are.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Mark:

If you look at page 13 of the 2021 budget you find the Control of Dogs department expenditures. No department revenues because they go into the General Fund.

Estimated Revenues, General Fund – Townwide (2021 budget)

A2544: Dog Licenses - $71,000
A2611: Dog Fines & Penalties - $200 ($1,000 in 2012). Ridiculous!

The department budget expenditure request was cut by $20,000 from the 2020 budget – from $150,300 to $130,787.


Other

10 years ago assistant DCO’S were earning near $16,00 / hr. Today, $14.00 /hr. with a larger population of dogs, where DCO and public dog bites are increasing, and where dogs are being sheltered in cages the DCO office down the road because there is no room in the present 4-kennel wooded shack, or for dog safety reasons.

The town is fortunate to have DCO department head Jean Karn for the services she provides the town and with budget and outsides constraints. The SPCA is no longer the available backup source it once was, vet, and especially emergency vet visits are costly and difficult to get, and the public has little knowledge of the dog handling seminars Karn provides for public and private organizations.

Karn does have a support group of pet owners that do drop off food, blankets, beds, etc. for town kennel and the pet rescue organizations she is associated with.

Am I a big supporter of Karn? Unabashedly, so. Someone has to be!

Build the new dog shelter – NOW!

[mark blazejewski]

Mark:

If you look at page 13 of the 2021 budget you find the Control of Dogs department expenditures. No department revenues because they go into the General Fund.

Estimated Revenues, General Fund – Townwide (2021 budget)

A2544: Dog Licenses - $71,000
A2611: Dog Fines & Penalties - $200 ($1,000 in 2012). Ridiculous!

The department budget expenditure request was cut by $20,000 from the 2020 budget – from $150,300 to $130,787.


Other

10 years ago assistant DCO’S were earning near $16,00 / hr. Today, $14.00 /hr. with a larger population of dogs, where DCO and public dog bites are increasing, and where dogs are being sheltered in cages the DCO office down the road because there is no room in the present 4-kennel wooded shack, or for dog safety reasons.

The town is fortunate to have DCO department head Jean Karn for the services she provides the town and with budget and outsides constraints. The SPCA is no longer the available backup source it once was, vet, and especially emergency vet visits are costly and difficult to get, and the public has little knowledge of the dog handling seminars Karn provides for public and private organizations.

Karn does have a support group of pet owners that do drop off food, blankets, beds, etc. for town kennel and the pet rescue organizations she is associated with.

Am I a big supporter of Karn? Unabashedly, so. Someone has to be!

Build the new dog shelter – NOW!

Mrs. Karn is truly an asset to Lancaster; a town rich with many who love animals, and blessed to have a true animal love at the helm of the Office.

Yea, build the shelter NOW!

[mark blazejewski]

10 years ago assistant DCO’S were earning near $16,00 / hr. Today, $14.00 /hr. with a larger population of dogs, where DCO and public dog bites are increasing, and where dogs are being sheltered in cages the DCO office down the road because there is no room in the present 4-kennel wooded shack, or for dog safety reasons.

The pay rate, IMHO, is disgraceful.

Under normal circumstances, the job of an assistant DCO is hazardous. Now, under the Covid circumstances, these dedicated people must enter homes and interact with inhabitants whose condition is unknown and who may have a challenged dog.

I am sure that these fine people are not in it for the money, but a more appropriate pay rate would be an acknowledgement of important and humane work that they engage, just my opinion of course.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Home Occupation dog kennels for breeding and sales

In August Lancaster issued its first Special Use Permit allowing a dog kennel operation where dogs would be bred and sold. The Schwartz Road operation will take place on 5.1 acres of agriculture zoned property – distant from adjoining homes.

Another request for a Special Use Permit to operate a home business kennel appeared in this week’s communications. The Aurora Street property on just over 1.2 acres of land would house 6 adult Siberian Huskies (2 males, 4 females), a future 32’ x 24’ pole barn, and an electric fence.

Unlike the precedented Schwartz Road location and property size, Special Use Permit approval criteria may be more difficult to satisfy here and with future applications that are sure to follow.

Special Use Permit Criteria

No special use permit shall be issued unless the Town Board finds the use complies with the following general requirements:

(1) The use is designed, located and proposed to be operated so the public health, safety, welfare and convenience will be protected.

(2) The use will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood where it is located.

(3) The use will be compatible with adjoining development and the character of the neighborhood where it is located.

(4) Adequate landscaping and screening is provided to preserve the character of the neighborhood.

(5) Impacts, including but not limited to noise, traffic, drainage, lighting, dust, and debris are sufficiently mitigated by the application to warrant granting of a permit.

(6) Adequate off-street parking and loading are provided and the special use will not substantially interfere with traffic on abutting streets.

Who inspects the pole barn to ensure it meets all Ag & Markets construction guidelines to ensure animal sanitary and safety needs are provided for.

Who inspects the kennels annually to ensure sanitary and safety protocols are met. State or Lancaster DCO? Who has the enforcement capability to impose fines or shut the operation down? Our court system is weak as it is.

[mark blazejewski]

Another request for a Special Use Permit to operate a home business kennel appeared in this week’s communications. The Aurora Street property on just over 1.2 acres of land would house 6 adult Siberian Huskies (2 males, 4 females)...

Who inspects the kennels annually to ensure sanitary and safety protocols are met. State or Lancaster DCO? Who has the enforcement capability to impose fines or shut the operation down? Our court system is weak as it is.

Lee,

I am not a big fan of "puppy mills," and my attitude is embedded in personal experience.

In 2012, we adopted a Wheaten puppy whose third generation heritage emerged from a puppy mill. Its grandfather, its father, and all but one of its siblings had health and neurological issues; tragic circumstances all of which required the sad ultimate.

In that regard, I hope that if the Special Use Permit is granted, it is done so with clearly defined conditions regarding sanitary and safety conditions.

To me, the care rendered to God's creatures is not only a measure of the humanity resident in its future family, but it quantifies the same in those who previously govern their welfare, starting at this very first level of government engagement.

With that said, and without intending to mix apples and oranges, BUILD THE DAMN SHELTER!!!

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee,

I am not a big fan of "puppy mills," and my attitude is embedded in personal experience.

In 2012, we adopted a Wheaten puppy whose third generation heritage emerged from a puppy mill. Its grandfather, its father, and all but one of its siblings had health and neurological issues; tragic circumstances all of which required the sad ultimate.

In that regard, I hope that if the Special Use Permit is granted, it is done so with clearly defined conditions regarding sanitary and safety conditions.

To me, the care rendered to God's creatures is not only a measure of the humanity resident in its future family, but it quantifies the same in those who previously govern their welfare, starting at this very first level of government engagement.

With that said, and without intending to mix apples and oranges, BUILD THE DAMN SHELTER!!!

I appreciate and support your concerns for the dogs' wellbeing. Equal concern has to be given to the neighborhood and the community as a whole. Bringing in such businesses into residential zoned districts impact the environment and are not compatible with the district and wellbeing of the neighbors.

[mark blazejewski]

Who inspects the pole barn to ensure it meets all Ag & Markets construction guidelines to ensure animal sanitary and safety needs are provided for.

Who inspects the kennels annually to ensure sanitary and safety protocols are met. State or Lancaster DCO? Who has the enforcement capability to impose fines or shut the operation down? Our court system is weak as it is.

This is an important question.

Since NYS has turned the dog licensing task completely over to local municipalities, it seems to me that the state may be inclined to charge the local DCO with the responsibilities, but what do I know?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Dog shelter construction update

Councilman Mike Wozniak, Dog Control Committee Chair, reported last night that materials are arriving for the construction of the new dog shelter and construction could start as soon as next week.

Once again, it was difficult hearing Mr. Wozniak speak on the town website recording. To confirm the message I contacted a few residents who attended the meeting. They affirmed that even they had difficulty understanding Wozniak’s report.

It is surprising that the foundation pad has not been poured yet.

[mark blazejewski]

Dog shelter construction update

Councilman Mike Wozniak, Dog Control Committee Chair, reported last night that materials are arriving for the construction of the new dog shelter and construction could start as soon as next week.

Once again, it was difficult hearing Mr. Wozniak speak on the town website recording. To confirm the message I contacted a few residents who attended the meeting. They affirmed that even they had difficulty understanding Wozniak’s report.

It is surprising that the foundation pad has not been poured yet.

Hearing difficulties and perhaps some inattention on my part made me think that the project was to begin next week; my bad.

Thank you for clarifying the progress to date Lee.

[Frank Lee Blunt]

Mark and Lee, I have a question you Lee may be able to get a handle on.

Was the size of a grant for the new facility for the TOL dog control operations affected by the amount of money put forth by the Town itself?

It seems to me EVERY bit of the monies the town got back from the States' decision to get out of the dog business should have gone directly into funding the new facility.

Mr. Wozniak continues to speak in a low monotone voice because he has little regard for anybody but himself and his ever-growing friends and family tree employed by the TOL.

Now I have done a deep dive into this list of town employees. There is no need to name them because from all I can gather, each is doing an admirable job in their particular positions.


The person who IS NOT doing such a good job for the citizen IS Wozniak. He and Mr. Town Engineer dropped the ball from the beginning. But back to my original thought, why did the Supervisor and Mr. Wozniak sit on precious funds that were available to use for the health and welfare of Lancaster's dog population?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Mark and Lee, I have a question you Lee may be able to get a handle on.

Was the size of a grant for the new facility for the TOL dog control operations affected by the amount of money put forth by the Town itself?

It seems to me EVERY bit of the monies the town got back from the States' decision to get out of the dog business should have gone directly into funding the new facility.

The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets offered New York State Companion Animal Capital Project Funds grants for a minimum grant of not less than $100,000 and not more than $500,000, not to exceed 75% of the total project cost.

The town incorrectly estimated the cost of constructing a 2,100 sq. ft. dog shelter and applied for a $305,000 grant – 75% of project cost funded by the state ($228,750), 25% funded by the town ($76,250), per grant terms.

There wasn’t anyone with an inkling of common sense that didn’t know that this building project cost was underestimated. From the time the agreement was approved every excuse under the sun was used to coverup the error and in the end town residents are forking out

At the July 7th Town Board meeting, the town is adopting a resolution to bond $485,000 (Capitol Improvement Project Bond) or the construction of a new six kennel dog shelter. The $485,000 project cost is offset by the $225,000 state grant. The town’s project cost liability is now $260,000 – a $183,750 increase from the grant application project cost.

Had the town appropriately estimated project cost and applied for a $500,000 Ag & Markets Animal Companion grant for $500,000, the town’s liability would be $125,000 – an increase of $48,750 over the original grant application, but $135,000 less than the $260,000 liability in place.

Who was responsible for the original miscalculated project cost? All roads lead to our engineering department and the construction firm that was contracted to assist the town in estimating project cost.

Councilman Wozniak serves as the Chair of the Dog Control Committee and is assisted on the committee by Supervisor Ruffino and Councilman Mazur.


As to the licensing fee revenues, that goes into the Town General Fund - not to the Dog Control Department s ordained by the state. Unaware what the the town does in distributing the fund. The town is paying the assistant DCO'S $14 / HR. A few have been bit. Pretty tough getting staff to stay and accepting call-ins when Tim Hortons is pay $16.50 / hr.

Looks like the Dog Control Department had another buzzy month – August report:

387 Complaints or calls received
174 Calls responded to / follow-ups
5 Compliance notices
87 Final notices
6 Court appearance tickets issued
6 Dog bite reports filed
10 dogs redeemed.
0 Dog rescue transfer
2 Dog transfer to SPCA
0 Dogs euthanized
0 Deceased dogs
1,399 miles patrolled with van

The department could sure use that new facility. The dogs / staff / residents deserve better.

Many of us don't want to hear: "Ah, they are only dogs." Unlike politicos, they are man's best friend!

[Lee Chowaniec]

Nice job, Ms. Karn

Town of Lancaster Dog Control
September 20 at 7:20 PM ·
UPDATE: Here is an update for the Doberman that no one claimed and was being held at Lancaster Dog Control. We teamed up with WNY Heroes to help the veterans in our community.


WNYHeroes.org
September 20 at 3:50 PM ·

Meet Cari our up and coming female Doberman with #PawsitiveforHeroes #servicedog program.

Cari was brought to us by the #LancasterAnimalControl as she was found wondering the streets. We decided to name her after Cari Gasiewicz from Cheektowaga, N.Y. Cari will start on Tuesday morning in the #NiagaraCountyCorrectionalFacility.

CHEEKTOWAGA, N.Y. — A military interpreter from western New York died Saturday December 4, 2004 in Iraq when a roadside bomb exploded on the convoy that was starting her on the journey home, church officials said Sunday.

Sgt. Cari Anne Gasiewicz, 28, of Cheektowaga, spoke fluent Arabic and served as an interpreter in a #militaryintelligence unit of the Army. Military officials informed her family of her death Saturday, said her uncle, Marty Gasiewicz. Gasiewicz died outside of Baghdad on Saturday afternoon while she was traveling to Kuwait, where she would have spent Christmas before being shipped home after the first of the year.

She graduated from #DepewHighSchool and attended #CanisiusCollege before enlisting in the #USArmy.

She is survived by her parents, Paul and Kathleen Gasiewicz of Cheektowaga, and her brother, Paul Gasiewicz Jr., 24.

“She loved the military, and she loved working as an interpreter,” said her uncle. “She thought she was making a difference over there. She thought she was helping people.”


https://www.facebook.com/36493444392...8661/?sfnsn=mo
Pictures of Cari