NOT ALL DOG PARK ISSUES COVERED
In reading the online news item in the Lewiston Sun, it would appear according to the selectmen that everything is covered on the proposed dog park. I don't quite see it that way.
I didn't see anything addressing the following issues in the article regarding the following:
LIABILITY INSURANCE IE
1. Who is going to cover a dog's injuries should one dog decide to destroy another? Is the person going to sue the town for damages that occurred to their dog or to the loss of the dog?
2. Who is going to cover a person's injuries should a dog decide to injure/bite someone because they got in between two dogs fighting to separate them? Do they recover their losses through the insurance the town holds?
3. Who is going to police this area so that the age limit is adhered to?
4. Who is going to police what dog has been inoculated and what dog hasn't?
5. Who is going to police this requirement for dogs traveling through the area and someone wants to let their pet out for some exercise?
6. Also, based on the sample ballot in the Lewiston paper the day before this article I question the way it is written as everything being a donation. This is typical political writing to get the townspeople of Bethel to vote on this because of this being a donation. Nothing is ever a simple donation. Why can't the question simply read “Do the voters of Bethel want to approve the construction of a dog park currently being proposed as a donated project, knowing that this project will inevitably have some type of town responsibility?” In this way it is simply stated and easy to understand. People get tired of reading articles to vote on that don't state the question in simple English.
People say they want their dogs to socialize. Well how do people socialize? They go to bars, they go to churches, they go to functions, restaurants, etc. In all of these places where people socialize the property is owned by private citizens. But now you say what about the town-owned skateboard park. Well although the skateboard park is town-owned property, this park is for kids and adults, who walk their dogs on leashes and is supported through taxpayers. Their tax dollars support this park so their children will have a place to go. This is an investment in our children's future and the town should have something for our future citizens. If people want their dogs to socialize then I suggest a private citizen donate their land or the dog committee buy a piece of land and build their dog park for the socialization of their dogs. This way, they do not have to go through all this rigamarole and go to town meeting to be voted on.
And on one another note, Steve Wight wants to know just what is the problem? Has he not been reading the Citizen and all the letters or is he just oblivious to the fact that there are people in this town that do not want this park.
Lastly but not least, if you can't find a place to walk your dog on your own then perhaps you shouldn't have one.