Residents Wants Dog Park Surveillance

Share:
Photo Courtesy City of Davis
Photo Courtesy City of Davis

by Jerika L.H.

A group of Davis locals have come together to express concern over the rising number of abandoned dogs being left in Yolo County dog parks. It is guessed that people assume the dogs will be picked up by an animal lover and rehomed.

Cayce Wallace, owner of Laughing Dogs Academy and founder of the Davis Pets Lost and Found Facebook group, says she has recently seen unwanted dogs left at the dog park on four separate occasions. “It makes me really angry as this area is totally unsafe! We spend a great deal of time trying to catch running dogs. I think it is out of towners or apartment dwellers. I fostered 3 dumped breeding small dogs a year ago in south Davis. Two chugs (chihuahua pugs) and a beautiful long haired chihuahua. Backyard breeders for sure. We can tell they’re dumped when no one is looking for them, there is no lost report filed and they’re usually not spayed or neutered. The dumping at the dog park, I think folks believe they are safe and will get a good home.”

Unfortunately, the location is anything but safe. Dogs often burrow under the fence and injure themselves. Once they escape the fencing, they can make their way onto the train tracks or the many busy roads that surround the parks. Many are hit and killed by cars.

Local dog lovers hope more surveillance will deter people from abandoning dogs at the park and persuade them to leave the animals at a shelter or find a home for their pet on their own. In addition, they could help people track down needed parties if other dogs don’t exactly play nice. “My dog was attacked at the park in February. My first reaction was to run over and make sure he was okay. By the time I looked up, the owner had her dog in the car and was driving off. I never got the license plate number and our vet bill ended up being around $650,” says Joy K.

Cameras will also provide some accountability for the crime of animal abandonment and help track down illegal backyard breeding operations and other unfortunate situations that are conducive to animal abuse.

The UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine notes that 3-4 million dogs and cats are euthanized each year in the United States because the number of homeless animals far exceeds the capacity of shelters to care for them. Those that never make it to a shelter usually die of starvation, exposure, infectious disease, animal attacks and car accidents, if they don’t get picked up by a kind-hearted citizen. They can also spawn new unwanted litters if they’re not fixed.

While there may be a few bad apples in the bunch, Cayce Wallace stresses the point that Davis is in no short supply of compassionate citizens. “Our Davis community is absolutely amazing at coming together and helping lost animals find their way back home, and helping owners find their dear sweet missing pets. People have gone out and looked during incredible rainstorms, drove around at all hours of the night and will get up early morning to start the starts all over again. It is an outstanding group of people.”

The Davis Pets Lost and Found Facebook group has an on-call volunteer group that help trap, locate and pick up abandoned dogs that are found roaming Davis. To sign up to volunteer, to post about a lost or found pet, or to keep abreast of animal sightings, join the Facebook group. And while you’re at it, like the Davis Vanguard Facebook page!

Share:

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

40 thoughts on “Residents Wants Dog Park Surveillance”

  1. South of Davis

    Jerika wrote:

    > Cameras will also provide some accountability for the crime of animal

    > abandonment and help track down illegal backyard breeding operations

    > and other unfortunate situations that are conducive to animal abuse.

    Do we really want a police state where our every move it watched (and recorded) on camera?

    Odds are that when a cop logs on to see who dumped a dog he will see some guy holding a bong buying a dime bag of pot from a fellow dog lover before a concert and the cops will do what they were trained to do and arrest these people.

    Who is going to pay for the installation and monitoring of the cameras?

    I recently put in some cameras and it cost a lot more than I thought it would (and I didn’t pay prevailing wage and have highly paid city workers supervising the project).  I am also amazed at the huge amount of time required to go on to the hard drive and actually find something (more time is required to save the files and download and update the software).

    1. RCrevelli

      That’s only your opinion, Ms. BarackPalin.  This story makes me feel SO SORRY for the dogs and SO ANGRY at the “humans” who leave them at the dog park.

      “The more I get to know some people – the more I like dogs.”

      1. Barack Palin

        You know nothing about me, everyone that does knows I’m a huge dog lover.  Please explain to everyone how putting surveillance in the park is going to deter people from dumping their dogs someplace else?  How is it going to stop dogs from fighting?  It just sounds like a bad use of city money which is what the article is about.

        1. RCrevelli

          Ya’ see – here’s the difference between a huge dog lover and someone who claims to be a huge dog lover.  I would SUPPORT using city money for the welfare of ‘dumped dogs.’  Given the choice on how to spend dollars (my own, the city’s, the states, etc.) – I put dogs first.  That’s just how I roll!

  2. nameless

    Two chugs (chihuahua pugs) and a beautiful long haired chihuahua. Backyard breeders for sure. We can tell they’re dumped when no one is looking for them, there is no lost report filed and they’re usually not spayed or neutered.

    If you truly believe this is backyard breeders who are dumping the dogs, why would you think surveillance cameras would make any difference?  Dog breeders will just dump the dogs elsewhere, but it won’t solve the problem, just move the problem.

    1. Barack Palin

      Exactly.  As far as the other problem of dogs fighting the dog owners should be responsible for their own dogs and not rely on the city to protect them.  That’s what some dogs do, fight.

  3. Frankly

    Reading about Venezuela… people hunting all the stray dogs and cats for food.  What a mess.  Another in a long list of clear evidence of the human misery and suffering caused by collectivist ideology (Marxism, socialism, communism).  But it won’t stop the march to yet another failed attempt from committed leftists.   It makes me wonder if leftists are the product of some macro biological function for population control.

    What does this have to do with our dog parks?

    First, I assume that most of the dogs that are dumped are dumped by people not living in Davis.

    Aside from a lack of basic human decency and morality (e.g., Michael Vick)… two thing in decline in this country… the solution to making more pets and farm animals safe from harm from humans is contained within the human hierarchy of needs challenge.

    Dog dumping is much more common from the residents of Fishtown than from residents of Belmont.

    Killing and eating dogs is much more common in Venezuela.

    But I’m sure we have a few dog-dumpers in our town.

    And this gets us back to the topic du jour these days… housing and economic development.

    At the lower end of the hierarchy of needs we have basic safety and security.  We need an affordable roof over our heads and enough money to pay for our basic necessities.  If we get these things we start to loosen up and care for others… including our pets.

    If we want to see more pets better cared for, we would be working to help improve the human condition so that more pet-owners had good jobs and affordable housing.

    So vote YES on measure A as a step in that direction.

    Vote YES on measure A if you care about the treatment of pets.

    [moderator]off topic

      1. Frankly

        Basically poor and financially stressed out people tend to not care for their pets as well as do the financially secure.   So, if you care about the treatment of pets, support things that help more people become financially secure.

        1. gentlereader

          There are easier and more efficient ways to decrease pet dumping than wait for society to care about the poor and oppressed among us (since it’s doubtful we ever will):

          Support high volume/low cost spay/neuter.

          Don’t buy from back yard breeders.

          Adopt/foster from a shelter or rescue.

          Offer to spay a dog owned by a low income neighbor.

          Simple.

          Oh, and the dog lovers aren’t hijacking your threads, so why don’t you show the same courtesy?

           

        2. Alan Miller

          Way not true:

          See lots of well-cared-for dogs with the in town beggars or homeless.

          Just found out rental house in high rent market is occupied by an “amazing number of dogs” according to reporting officer, probably being used as illegal breeding facility.

        3. Frankly

          See lots of well-cared-for dogs with the in town beggars or homeless.

          Agree, but… how many well-off people do you think would dump a dog?

          Observed exceptions don’t disprove facts.

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2792040/

          Cruelty to animals is associated with elevated rates observed in young [who are generally poor because they are young], poor, men with family histories of antisocial behavior…

          1. Don Shor

            An article about cruelty to animals is irrelevant to the issue of dumping pets. We have had numerous animals dumped on our county road that have ended up at our door. Thirteen dogs by actual count over the years, and an uncounted number of cats. We have come to assume that the people think the dog or cat has a better chance than if they take it to the pound. We’ve even had kittens left in a carrier with food. We just found another kitten, maybe three weeks old, yesterday morning.

            Sometimes they win the lottery and we find them in time. More often not. The dead high-value Siamese cat with the fancy collar didn’t come from a low-income home, I’d guess. It also didn’t last more than 24 hours.

            So I would be cautious about making assumptions about the demographics of who is doing this. People are ignorant: they need to know that it is not a better chance for the pet than taking it to a shelter or the pound. It can lead to horrible, slow, or very violent death. The outcome is cruel, but I no longer think that’s the intention of the people who do this. I’ve seen it many times because of where we live. Ignorance is not an issue of poverty. There’s no correlation of ignorance or stupidity with income. So I do think you’ve hijacked this thread and should try to avoid doing that in the future.

            I don’t know if cameras are a practical option, but I’m certainly supportive of looking into it as well as discussing other alternatives. I do feel that more resources are probably needed at the agencies that deal with animal welfare.

        4. Frankly

          I think you are very wrong on this Don.  There are numerous reliable resources that point to the primary cause for dumping of pets to be economic.  This might be inconvenient to your worldview, but it is the fact.

          https://www.thedodo.com/why-people-surrender-pets-1532254030.html

          Now I anticipate that you are going to jump on this saying it is about dumping and not taking the pet to a shelter or the pound.  But you are not going to win that argument.  There is no way that people dumping are primarily of strong financial means.  Yes, I would assume there are some ignorant.  Or maybe some that think the pet is not going to be adopted and will be euthanized at the pound and hence this it might have a better chance at life being dumped… but there are not going to be many of those people.

          It has been proven time and time again that the poorer the neighborhood, the more mistreated are the pets.  They are mistreated, abandoned and dumped in greater numbers. The same is true for children.

          1. Don Shor

            Sigh. Ok, Frankly. You done now? You are way off topic and you have hijacked the thread. Will you please not do that?

        5. Tia Will

          “Support things that help more people becomes financially secure.”

          Agreed. Like a UBI. It would help every one provide for their pets.

        6. gentlereader

          >>Now I anticipate that you are going to jump on this saying it is about dumping and not taking the pet to a shelter or the pound.  But you are not going to win that argument.  There is no way that people dumping are primarily of strong financial means.  Yes, I would assume there are some ignorant.  Or maybe some that think the pet is not going to be adopted and will be euthanized at the pound and hence this it might have a better chance at life being dumped… but there are not going to be many of those people.<<

          We know why people take their pets to the shelter. We don’t know why they dump them, and those ARE two different things. I have my suspicions: Think the animals have a better chance dumped than at the shelter, have their own reasons for avoiding authority figures with the power to arrest/background check them, lazy, . . . but we don’t know because we have not interviewed them. I personally think your reason–that they have a better chance in the streets, is one of the top reasons, and I think there are a lot of those people. In fact, in some areas of the country, I think it’s probably true.

    1. hpierce

      Given your use of adjectives, Frankly, am starting to wonder if you believe all moderates are trans-politically-gendered.  Worse, perhaps, in your view than those who hold your views or those of the far left.

      That said, the dog park issue, while somewhat silly (as to the need for surveillance cameras), in my view, is a really stupid link to “leftists”… many animal-protection folk are VERY conservative, politically, and the reality is that the abandonment of domestic animals is criminal behavior… and mean spirited, etc.

      Oh, now I perhaps see why you have a problem with looking at ways to mitigate…

      The surveillance camera idea is, indeed, stupid, expensive, probably ineffective.

      Rant on, Mc Frankly!

    2. gentlereader

      I’m glad this is humorous to you. Not so funny to go out and find dead/dying dogs on the road. I’m not sure cameras are the answer–I don’t know. But it’s not a joke.

       

      1. Frankly

        This is NOT humorous to me.  I love dogs and even like cats.  I dislike humans that dump them and mistreat them. I truly deal with anger issues that make me want to go hurt people that harm animals.

        If you go back and read what I wrote my point was that people that cannot take care of themselves will generally not take care of their pets.

        So if you advocate that allow more people to take better care of themselves, they will take better care of their pets.

        Many of the people that would dump a dog are people lacking resources to care for the dog.

  4. hpierce

    Oh, and Frankly, frankly I can see no relation to the “topic du jour” and measure A… yet you wrote,

    If we want to see more pets better cared for, we would be working to help improve the human condition so that more pet-owners had good jobs and affordable housing.
    So vote YES on measure A as a step in that direction.
    Vote YES on measure A if you care about the treatment of pets.

    Talk about non sequitar! and,

    And this gets us back to the topic du jour these days… housing and economic development.

    Clearly ‘off topic’ as to this thread… are you a stray and/or rabid? ‘Abandonment issues’?

  5. ryankelly

    I do understand the frustration by people who have had to devote time to catching terrified dogs that have been clearly dumped at the park.  I feel for the dogs that find themselves abandon. I disagree with the solution of putting up cameras to monitor the dog park in an effort to catch dumpers and maybe owners of dogs that get into altercations with other dogs at the park.  Taking your dog to a dog park is an “at your own risk” kind of thing.  Dogs get into altercations, people don’t watch or have control of their dogs, etc.  This is why I avoid taking my dog to the dog park at certain times of the day or on specific days.

    We don’t have cameras monitoring other parks in Davis, even those with problems, and I don’t know why the dog park problems rise to the level of this extra expense and intrusion.   If someone really wants to dump their dogs, I don’t think a camera will be a deterrent.  They will just abandon their dog somewhere else, where no one will come by.

    My suggestion is to post signage that would inform people of alternates to dumping their dogs – a phone number to contact, a safe location, etc.

  6. Biddlin

    I think that cameras are a good idea. I think cctv cams all over town are a good idea, because they are an unobtrusive protection to everyone except the criminals. I believe you’ll catch many folks who are simply desperate and some who are malicious. If it helps to save a dog or cat (or a grandparent or a kid) all good. I avoid dog parks because of ignorant owners and un-socialized dogs. Until some civil engineer or developer discovers it, I have a lovely meadow/marsh a couple of blocks from my house, where my two dogs can run and play, relatively undisturbed.

  7. Frankly

    The thing that everyone should know about security cameras is that they do not stop crime, they only cause crime to move to the next place that does not have a security camera.

    Dumping the dogs at the dog park, at least there is the higher probability that a dog-lover finds it and does something to help get it taken care of.  Put up cameras and now the dog get’s dumped somewhere else where he is not as likely to survive.

    Maybe a better solution is to donate more to the local animal shelter and SPCA and work to get the abandoned dog to them.  In fact, the city can take the money they would otherwise use for security cameras and offer free dog training classes and provide some public service mailers to tell residents what to do if they can no longer care for a pet.

    Of course we give up these creative types of solutions having instead opted for giving fat retirement benefits to all the 50-something city workers.

  8. Tia Will

    Frankly

    Maybe a better solution is to donate more to the local animal shelter and SPCA and work to get the abandoned dog to them.  In fact, the city can take the money they would otherwise use for security cameras and offer free dog training classes and provide some public service mailers to tell residents what to do if they can no longer care for a pet.”

    It is so rare that I agree with you that I feel the need to second this motion publicly. A less expensive and environmentally friendly option than mailers might be to post this information prominently at the dog park.

    Frankly ?  Frankly ?…… Are you ok ?

  9. nameless

    Frankly: “Now I anticipate that you are going to jump on this saying it is about dumping and not taking the pet to a shelter or the pound.  But you are not going to win that argument.  There is no way that people dumping are primarily of strong financial means.

    According to this article the author thinks the dog dumpers are unscrupulous dog breeders: “Backyard breeders for sure.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for