Wow, last I checked there were 650 signatures. When I checked earlier this morning there were 300 some. Awesome!!

Also, I'm really curious - where have all the naysayers gone? It has been very quiet around here since it came out that City Council proposed reducing the fines. I'm just curious what happened to the 40 or so people (20% of 200 surveyed) that thought the $1,000 fines were a grand idea.

I'm still here. I still think it's a grand idea.

RayRay, have you read the petition and the 1000+ signatures and comments on the petition? Have you researched the offenses that Baltimore city places at the same $1000 mark? Have you spoken to any city council members? Because they clearly had an 'oopsie' moment, as Ms. Rawlings-Blake herself wrote to me and said, "It was unknown at the time that a catchall provision was included in the legislation that had the effect of raising the leash law penalty from $100 to $1000." There was no logic behind the increase, and there is no logic behind your statement that it is a grand idea.

If you want another good read - http://www.ohmidog.com/2009/04/27/will-dog-lovers-give-up-on-baltimore/ Do you really want all the dog lovers to leave Baltimore? Because based on many of the comments on the petition, and this woman's strongly worded letter, it is a possibility. What will you do when your biggest concern is no longer your neighbor's off-leash dog but the prostitutes and druggies who influx the city's parks even moreso? $1000 fine ain't gonna do anything to deter your new 'neighbors'.

I have read the petition. I never claimed to base my opinion on logic ( yours, mine or anyone elses.)It is simply my opinion. This discussion is about dogs and leashes. If I want to discuss prostitutes and druggies I will go over to the crime blog. This concludes my comments on this subject - forever.

I personally believe they knew exactly what they were doing when passing the new laws - especially those that fell into the "all other provisions" category as the leash law did. This city is scrambling for money (despite having recently "misplaced" and "found" $40 million bucks...) and think that areas such as Federal Hill and Canton are the cash cows of the city. What they didn't count on was the backlash. Now, conveniently, they are back pedaling appropriately.

I see the benefit for reducing the fine for first offense ..
What I was wondering is why was this fine set...
to reduce harm to human?
Or reduce animal cruilty?

Dogs are great companion but some owners bit ndatack aand cuase a lot of harm ..so people want to inflict harm on others with a reduced fine??
Or want to expose their dog to harm from other unleashed dogs..which is animal cruelty in my book. I get puzzled of dog owners who want to harm their dog and say they love them??