Interesting
We appear to have some confusion about Wadsworth Park.
I disagree with that. Perhaps I am wrong. But this is my opinion.
First off, “City” means the City of Great Falls, Montana, or the area within the territorial limits of the City of Great Falls, Montana, and such territory outside of the City over which the City has jurisdiction or control by virtue of any constitutional or statutory provision.
Second, “It is unlawful for any person who owns or harbors a cat or dog, or the parents or guardians of a person under the age of eighteen, to allow such animal to run at large within the corporate limits of the City.”
This includes City Parks, of which Wadsworth is one. But I thought, hey, maybe there is a different set of regulations for Wadsworth. So I called the Park and Rec Department. Guess what they said? There are no specific regulations for Wadsworth Park that would negate the standard City Park regulation of having your dog on a leash.
I did not, however, consider that the City Foresters would be the ones to whom I would need to speak in order to learn City Park regulations.
“Interesting the information one finds that isn’t public knowledge.” How is Wadsworth Park not public knowledge? And how is it not public when you can call Park and Rec and ask them. And if they tell you, standard regulations, where is the issue?
“I can see another reason why Dona Stebbins and the Foundation haven’t told people about the park.” Why should they? It is apparently no different than any other park.
“A very good example of the type of dog and owner which one will find utilizing the Animal Foundation dog park is here. …Within seconds of the initial sniff test she had Bailey pinned to the ground and her teeth were inches from Bailey’s neck…” So instead of a dog park you want to send them to where my kids play. Yeah. Thanks.
“City Parks & Rec isn’t announcing this park, either.” Why should they? It has been there for what, 20, 25 years?
For the most part, I don’t really care if we have a “dog park”. (Really, is a Chihuahua getting munched by a Chow any more humane than a squirrell geting whacked in the head? or run over on the street?)
But this Wadsworth Park deal is about making certain poeple look bad, it really has nothing to do with the park itself, or any real issue, and I think that sucks.
We all know there are plenty of people that let dogs run off leash, all over. Parks, down the street, down at the river, etc. Whatever. A well mannered dog under its owners immediate control is no big deal. But to claim Wadsworth is a dog park, to make it an issue, accuse elected officials of hiding something about a resource that has been around for decades, just to further their own agendas, seems a pretty big reach.
If I do, in fact, learn that there are different rules on Wadsworth, I will, of course, post it. But I won’t change my opinion of this particular situation. Wadsworth is a wonderful place. There is simply no reason to invent elaborate scenarios of corruption regarding its existence and purpose. I think it is unjustified, and meaningless to the management of the Shelter, the Foundation and the actions of City Officials, and most of all, MONEY, which is what this all is really about. But that’s just my opinion.
Leave a Reply