RochesterSubway.com : Ban Life on the Lot: Rochester’s Junkyard Dogs

Ban Life on the Lot: Rochester’s Junkyard Dogs

May 6th, 2013

The following is a guest post submitted by Joel Helfrich.
Submit your story today.

Rochester admittedly has its share of problems: socioeconomic, educational, and transportation, among many others. Most problems will take a great amount of knowhow, community support, and time to correct. The problem of “junkyard” dogs—dogs used to guard, watch, or protect businesses such as car dealerships and metal recyclers while the property owners are absent—is potentially quickly solvable. Simple solutions would be beneficial to the animals that spend their lives lost on the lots of this city.

If we are to become a community of compassion, a community that supports all living things, we must realize that dogs, like all sentient beings, are not here for our entertainment, to protect property, or to live out their lives with limited or no clean food and shelter, often unprotected from the wind, heat, rain, or cold, on hot, hard, and dirty surfaces. Bare minimum of standards and care is not enough. [Read about Animal Law in New York State (PDF)]. Access to food, water, and insulated shelter is hardly adequate for any dogs, let alone “junkyard” dogs, given that the food and water can run out or become contaminated, and shelter is never heated. And there is of course the issue of companionship: dogs are not solitary creatures.

On Saturday, April 20, I found four dogs living on three lots near the intersection of Portland and North. At a scrap yard at 50 Portland Avenue (listed on the City’s online database as 42 Portland), two German Shepherds acted as sentries for this large industrial facility. Nearby, ripped cloth materials, garbage, and what looked like electronic waste debris littered the ground—an obvious violation of New York State law that requires a clean place for dogs to live; the metal debris was worse the following evening, despite the fact that this business was open during the day.

Around the corner, at 475 North Street, an auto body shop, a large Rottweiler stood watch over his tiny prison of cars. His bedding is clearly pine or some other kind of wood chips, but it is unclear if his shelter is covered or insulated. He did not have a license tag, a clear violation of the law. Moreover, what large containers I did see that I assume held his food and water had likely been used by birds, mice, and rats. Indeed, when I visited this location, these containers were being investigated by a pigeon, while a dead rat lay nearby.

At another auto body shop across the street at 488-490 North Street, a Pit bull mix also depressingly guarded cars. It was unclear if any of the dogs I saw had clean water and food, let alone any water and food. According to our laughable laws, dogs only need their water freshened every 48 hours! Given the number of auto body shops or tire shops and scrap yards in Rochester, there are likely many dogs living in the same circumstances.

And then there are Rochester winters and summers. When I saw these dogs, the outside temperature was 34ºF, hardly pleasant weather for non-Nordic dog breeds such as the Rottweiler, Pit bull mix, and two German Shepherds.

The four dogs I watched on Saturday appeared clearly friendly, but also exceptionally lonely. Although they were excited and wagged their tails, their eyes told the story of deep sadness. Is a life confined to the lot of a car dealership or a scrap yard any respect or thanks for the love, devotion, desired companionship, and loyalty of “man’s best friend”? What is wrong with people?

As Gandhi once stated, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” Certainly this quotation applies to our community, especially to our collective lack of respect and humane treatment of the non-human animals standing guard on lots throughout the City.

City Council members would be wise and compassionate to create a municipal code that bans “junkyard” dogs within our community. It is as simple as that. Then we can move on to the next “pressing issue” that the City faces.

If you agree with my essay, please contact your City Council members:

Carolee A. Conklin
[email protected]

Matt Haag
[email protected]

Dana K. Miller
[email protected]

Jacklyn Ortiz
[email protected]

Loretta C. Scott
[email protected]

 Adam McFadden, South District
[email protected]

Carla M. Palumbo, Northwest District
[email protected]

Elaine M. Spaull, East District
[email protected]

Lovely A. Warren, Northeast District
[email protected]

If you would like to see a statewide ban, contact:
Joe Morelle
David Gantt
Joe Robach
Harry Bronson

• • •

Joel Helfrich plans to testify about this issue before the City Council on Tuesday, May 14, at 6:30. To support an initiative to ban “junkyard” dogs on Rochester’s lots, please call the City Council at 428-7421 before 5:30pm on May 14.

For a related story, see: Group wants junkyard dogs off lots and into living rooms .

Joel would also like the addresses of additional locations where “junkyard” dogs live. Please send private emails to [email protected] (the 00s are zeros).

• • •

About Joel Helfrich:

Joel Helfrich is a father, educator, historian, and activist who works on animal rights, environmental, historic and sacred sites preservation, and social justice issues.

Tags: animal rights, animals, dog, Joel Helfrich, junkyard, junkyard dogs, metal recycling, North Street, Portland Avenue, Rochester, Rochester NY, scrap metal, scrapyard

This entry was posted on Monday, May 6th, 2013 at 7:39 am and is filed under Opinion, Reader Submitted Stories, Rochester Images, Rochester News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

18 Responses to “Ban Life on the Lot: Rochester’s Junkyard Dogs”

Sile says:

May 6, 2013 at 8:09 am

If these places “can’t afford” alarmed gates, maybe they shouldn’t be in business. Why not post a human instead of an animal? Oh, right. you’d have to pay the human as well.

Dogs aren’t my favorite creature (we all have our preferences), but I dont’ like to see ANY animal mistreated, not properly cared for, and just used for the convenience of man.

Thanks for exposing this.

Btw, have you seen the donkey that takes up residence in a lot on Dewey (I think)? Who keeps a donkey in the city?
ELF says:

May 6, 2013 at 8:32 am

You can see them at that scrap dealer/auto place on East Main/Railroad St. near the Public Market too. That whole place is an embarrassing eyesore.
John says:

May 6, 2013 at 8:46 am

I like the Dewey Ave Donkey. He lives in a fenced in vacant lot, so he’s got a fair amount of space. I think he also winters somewhere else, because I never see him during the winter. He hasn’t come back yet, but I’m hoping he’ll be back in the next few weeks.
Joel Helfrich says:

May 6, 2013 at 9:53 am

The German Shepherd on the corner of Main and Railroad is in a lot with a Main Street address. If you have the address for the donkey on Dewey, I would appreciate it.

I plan to testify about this issue to the City Council on Tuesday, May 14, at 6:30. If you would also like to speak to the City Council, call 428-7421 before 5:30 that day.
Jeff says:

May 6, 2013 at 10:27 am

If you believe that these animals are being treated in a way that is a violation of an existing law, or that the animals are being mistreated, did you contact the humane society? According to the city’s web site (http://www.cityofrochester.gov/animalcontrol/), that is the appropriate action for issues of potential animal mistreatment in the city.
Joel Helfrich says:

May 6, 2013 at 12:54 pm

@Jeff: Yes, both The Humane Society and Rochester’s Animal Control were contacted. Both organizatiuons, however, support the law, but the fines are rarely levied. More often than not, businesses are warned. The hands of the law enforcement community are tied. The problem is that the laws are not adequate to protect dogs that deserve better lives — in fact, need human companionship — than to be stuck on hot or cold pavement for their entire lives. As long as the dogs have their water refreshed every 48 hours (and have food enough for 48 hours, even if they finish it or it is eaten by other critters), the law says that is okay. To me, that is unacceptable.
chase tyler says:

May 8, 2013 at 12:09 am

Just when you think you have it bad…
Carl Laitenberger says:

May 8, 2013 at 7:27 pm

I have to say that I would rather find out more before making a judgement. My experience has been that animal lovers tend to react rather than think. As far as Ghandi is concerned, his opinion is interesting, but I wouldn’t accept it myself.
Joel Helfrich says:

May 9, 2013 at 4:50 pm

@ Carl Laitenberger: Please let me know what you find out. And, furthermore, what person’s opinion would you accept?

Note: if I am an “animal lover,” so be it, but do not accuse me of not “thinking” or else you might be accused of not feeling, nor caring, nor thinking deeply about the issue. I am “thinking” critically and creatively about how best to “react.”

One thing, for example, that I would love to know: if the City Council, instead of spending $42,000/year to expel crows from City parks, was willing to give small grants to these businesses to install security cameras and alarm systems, would those businesses accept?
Melissa says:

May 13, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Would you also be looking for public support at the meeting? This could also be worded similarly to the anti-tether laws in other municipalities in NYS
Ada Simms says:

May 13, 2013 at 12:55 pm

One of my clients, a city resident, has a fenced in yard but no dog house. His dog would be outside very content for a few hours while the owner was in the house. Animal control paid him a visit and told him he had to have a dog house structure with specific measurements and material.
It leads me to believe that Animal Control is picking and choosing who to issue summons to. If a resident home needs to have a dog house for a dog that lives in the home, I am sure the same applies to dogs that have no where to sleep except outside.
Joel Helfrich says:

May 13, 2013 at 8:21 pm

@Melissa: yes, I need public support and will probably need to create an alliance to get this law (as well as some other initiatives) on the books.
Joel Helfrich says:

May 13, 2013 at 9:06 pm

@Ada Simms: All residents and businesses that leave dogs outside year-round are required by law to have insulated shelter. See the organization PAWS: http://pawsofrochester.org/. The businesses visited by both Animal Control and Lollypop staff have shelter. However, this is the bare minimum of adherence to the law. Dogs, like many other animals, should not be living in isolation — and many animal behaviorists have stated as much.

See the laws regarding dogs and shelter and food/water:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=@LLAGM+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=EXPLORER+&TOKEN=35218373+&TARGET=VIEW
Ada Simms says:

May 14, 2013 at 10:13 am

“4) allow for
effective removal of excretions, other waste material; dirt and trash.
The housing facility and the area immediately surrounding it shall be
regularly cleaned to maintain a healthy and sanitary environment and to
minimize health hazards.”
From your report I do believe the above would be a fitting violation that the city of Rochester would issue to the owners of these places.
Joel Helfrich says:

May 14, 2013 at 10:29 am

I do not disagree. However, both City animal control officers and HSUS officers have stated that they have checked out the locations and everything is a-okay. I disagree, especially with the assessment of Metalico. These dogs are always in close contact with metal, trash, and other debris — even the tiniest of pieces of glass and metal can get in their paws. And furthermore, there appears to be only one dog at Metalico now, which makes me wonder…. Lastly, there is the fact that most of these dogs will never feel grass under their feet or sit inside a house with a loving family.
Joel Helfrich says:

May 14, 2013 at 8:31 pm

I meant Humane Society of Greater Rochester, not HSUS.
Stacey says:

May 16, 2013 at 4:09 pm

Thank you for sharing this story Joel. It’s important for us to be the voice for these animals. These companion animals do not fair well in living conditions like this. The extreme temperatures, the isolation, the boredom, kills their spirit with each passing day. We have to require more for them. Hopefully, by publishing this story, people will begin to step up and speak out for the voiceless.
Lincoln DeCoursey says:

June 3, 2013 at 3:00 pm

Yes the ideal role for a dog is as a pet but society has accepted working dogs for various roles and particular animals are bred and trained specifically for these purposes.

Guard dogs augment other security measures, especially where open lots are involved. They protect property as well as the safety of people who otherwise may be enticed to trespass.

I suspect that circumstances vary from case to case. There are reports of some dogs being kept in small cages during the day, but many guard dogs may enjoy the run of the shop during business hours, and likely enjoy significant human companionship at least six days a week.

Topics

Ban Life on the Lot: Rochester’s Junkyard Dogs

About Joel Helfrich:

18 Responses to “Ban Life on the Lot: Rochester’s Junkyard Dogs”

Post a Comment...