Dog lives matter

[Lee Chowaniec]

one question I have...how many court actions were for a dangerous dog???

Dangerous dog court cases

2017 – 1
2018 – 9
2019 – 5
2020 - 3

[Lee Chowaniec]

[QUOTE=gorja;1932514][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=3]

I'll start off by stating that I believe that Mrs Karn does a GREAT job.

Indeed!

But when I read the quote above, I thought it could very easily be construed as the DCO didn't want to go in so her husband called in one of his officers for OT

That assumes Ms. Karn was not available because she was not in town.

Not that that is the way it happened. But it seems that it could be their way of showing that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

When you say that her husband, the Police Chief, called in one of his officers in for overtime, did you know that the officer called is the one specially trained to handle an aggressive dog? In a recent aggressive dog incident where the complaint went to the police as usually happens (1:30 am), there was an officer at the scene. He called the Dog Control person scheduled to answer the call and received no answer for assistance from that individual or any other individual in DCO. The officer called for assistance from the police officer trained to handle such instances.

This is just an observation looking at it unbiasedly.

Seriously?

All the drama and conspiracy nonsense over hesitation to approve a resolution that would encompass 4-hours pay for a part-time DCO earning $13 an hour and predicated on a cost estimated at $200, as the call-in event frequency is rare.

Fiscal responsibility, or political posturing? Much ado about nothing!

[gorja]

Why not present the resolution again only including the dangerous dog issue?
Maybe it would get the votes

[Lee Chowaniec]

Why not present the resolution again only including the dangerous dog issue?
Maybe it would get the votes

I am quite certain that you are aware that resolution was proposed by Supervisor Ruffino a few board meetings ago and was not approved. In turn Ruffino and Mazur voted down a Leary proposal to cover personnel call-in situations and court appearances.

I understand your support for Ruffino’s position, but I would ask why you would be opposed to paying an individual earning $13 an hour from getting a guarantee of 4-hours pay for a rare shift call-in or court appearance – total annual estimated cost to the town of a few hundred dollars?

Would you answer a call-in that may only take an hour’s worth of work for $13, use your own vehicle in the process and not be compensated for it?

Ask Ruffino how many assistant DCO’s staff the department and then ask how many are reliable? The department is a revolving door for hiring and this nickel and dime approach is one of the reasons why.

I wholeheartedly favor fiscal responsibility when appropriate and when in the best interest of the community. A $28.3 million General Budget ($36 million with Special Districts) and we are quibbling over a few hundred dollars.

[gorja]

I am quite certain that you are aware that resolution was proposed by Supervisor Ruffino a few board meetings ago and was not approved. In turn Ruffino and Mazur voted down a Leary proposal to cover personnel call-in situations and court appearances.

I understand your support for Ruffino’s position, but I would ask why you would be opposed to paying an individual earning $13 an hour from getting a guarantee of 4-hours pay for a rare shift call-in or court appearance – total annual estimated cost to the town of a few hundred dollars?

Would you answer a call-in that may only take an hour’s worth of work for $13, use your own vehicle in the process and not be compensated for it?

Ask Ruffino how many assistant DCO’s staff the department and then ask how many are reliable? The department is a revolving door for hiring and this nickel and dime approach is one of the reasons why.

I wholeheartedly favor fiscal responsibility when appropriate and when in the best interest of the community. A $28.3 million General Budget ($36 million with Special Districts) and we are quibbling over a few hundred dollars.

The resolution on July 6 was tabled and never voted on for approval.
What got me was coming in for 5 minutes to feed a dog and get paid 4 hours.

[Lee Chowaniec]

=gorja;1932852]The resolution on July 6 was tabled and never voted on for approval.

It was up for resolution, sponsored by Ruffino , discussed at the work session by the board and tabled because Ruffino knew he didn't have the votes for approval. Nitpicking.

What got me was coming in for 5 minutes to feed a dog and get paid 4 hours.

Exactly Ruffino's position. $13 to leave your home for a call-in and feed a dog(s), more than fair right?

[Lee Chowaniec]

July 2020 Monthly Report by DCO Karn to Town Board

260 Complaints or calls received
86 Calls responded to / follow-ups
124 Compliance Notices
3 Final Notices
14 Appearance tickets
5 dog bite reports filed
6 Dogs redeemed
1 SPCA transfer
0 Dogs euthanized
2235 Miles patrolled with van

[Wehner]

Dangerous dog court cases

2017 – 1
2018 – 9
2019 – 5
2020 - 3

Maybe I should have been clearer in my statement...I would like to know how many court cases for a dangerous dog in lancaster, villages of Depew and Lancaster...and what was the outcome of these cases...I don't care who answered the call...I want to know how the court handled the cases and the outcome...

[Wehner]

Total number of dogs seized should be added to the monthly report...without a total the majority of the monthly report is useless...What were the 14 appearance tickets written for?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Total number of dogs seized should be added to the monthly report...without a total the majority of the monthly report is useless...What were the 14 appearance tickets written for?

It would be valuable to see the number of dogs seized. As a former DCO, your concerns are relevant. I am sure your questions and suggestions would be appreciated by the current department head – or you could FOIL for the information and pass the information to us.

I am impressed by the information Karn publishes as I had never seen a report published by the two previous DCO heads in the 20 years I attended town board meetings.

Did you publish like reports and make them public?

[gorja]

Here is one thing I thought was odd. How many people in a cheektowaga facebook group I skim seem to have their pets get loose. I'm surprised how many times that happens.

It looks like you people in Cheektowaga are doing it for about $29,000 less than us. The labor is only about $5,000 less than ours.
I wonder how they cover the off hours with dangerous dogs.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Overfed and under-exercised, some dogs are putting on pandemic pounds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/scien...ndemic-pounds/

Sanchez said that 44 percent of respondents to the Banfield survey said they were paying closer attention to their pets. She’s been encouraging them to think of new ways to give the dogs exercise and stimulation.

“My dog is a rescue, and he’s always had some issues with being outside, and with noise phobias. A large part of his exercise has always been tug-of-war or catch in the house or the backyard,” she said. “Those are great things to do. … And if you bring home a new toy, or if you have another pet they can play with, you’ll start to find more creative ways to add exercise indoors.”


Keeping your dog healthy and away from expensive health related issues and treatment is most important!

[Lee Chowaniec]

Last night the Town Board of the Town of Lancaster unanimously approved the site plan prepared and submitted by Ed Schiller of William Schutt & Associates, for a 88’ x 34’ Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) structure with trussed roof for office space, garage space, kennels, exam room and storage area located at 525 Pavement Road, in the Town of Lancaster.

[Lee Chowaniec]

The 2021 Lancaster tentative budget cuts the Dog Control Department’s budget by $31,000 – from $150,000 to $119,000; 21%. It still allows for 1.5% staff salary increases. Overtime allotment was decreased from $4,000 to $1,000.

A department request to budget $5,000 to perform a dog census was disallowed. As the dog control department is a function of public safety, that is unfortunate. Unfortunate as well in that such census was promised by the town board several years ago and never performed.

It is estimated that there are at least as many unlicensed dogs in Lancaster as licensed. A census would bring in more department revenue initially and over the years than the expense to conduct one. The licensing revenue goes directly to the dog control operation. The dog control department already collects $70,000 in licensing fees and is one of the most cost-efficient, self-sustaining departments in town.

More importantly, Dog Control is a public safety function and should not be taken lightly. There is the possibility that an unlicensed dog may not have been vaccinated for rabbis. The number of aggressive dog and dog bite incidents have been on the rise. In addition, there is a significant number of racoons with rabbis being reported.

[mark blazejewski]

Let's Keep Lancaster Unleashed and The Bark Park Non-Political Please!


I would like to preface my comments with a note of thanks for the wonderful work that Lancaster Unleashed has done. To date, it has seemingly focused on its stated purpose.

Those donating to Lancaster Unleased appear to be bonded in their love for animals, and collectively contribute to lift the condition of the furry members of their family; their beneficent intentions seemingly are not related to partisan political messaging.

Therefore, I was sorely disappointed to learn that the attached was apparently tweeted by Lancaster Unleashed...

I am particularly troubled that this was apparently tweeted at a time of such pronounced national political tensions and divisions.

I understand The Bark Park to always have been a valued zone of serenity; a happy refuge from the worries and challenges of daily life.

In that connection, and again to reiterate, and I do not presume to speak for all, the Lancaster Unleashed benefactors that I know, donate simply out of love for their pets, and, albeit indirectly, not in support of partisan political causes.

Moreover, those same friends who patronize The Bark Park, do so with the expectation of warm welcome, not the insidious friction created by perceived reduced value.

These well-intentioned comments are conveyed to express my concern for the preservation of the integrity of Lancaster Unleashed, and my admiration for the noble and non-partisan work it has heretofore faithfully conducted.