Best Cities for Dogs, Part 2

Yesterday, the Today Show ran a story about the top 5 cities in the country for dogs.  Turns out, the source of the story is Men's Health Magazine -- and I should have been more up to date on my personal reading....

Men's Health ranked the United State's 50 largest metros to determine the most dog-friendly areas. 

The criteria they used were:

1) Number of people that owned dogs

2) Number of dog parks

3) Number of pet stores that serve dog owners

4) Number of shelters for abandoned dogs

5) Number daycare facilities

6) Number of Veterinarians

7) Number of Heartworm cases reported

Obviously there are flaws to their methods -- as daycare facilities, and pet stores usually follow dog ownership - -so if there are more dogs, there is more demand for their services.  Vets, to a lesser extent, follow that same patern.  Shelters may actually be a negative - -high demand for shelters means a lot of homeless dogs...which isn't a good measure.

But all in all, I have a tough time faulting any of the top 5...all are very good dog communities in their own right - - the top 5 being Colorado Springs, Portland, Albuquerque, Seattle and Tucson. 

Unfortunately Denver comes in at #6 according to Men's Health.  And Louisville came in at 34 -- out of 50-- which is still too high.  Again, the rankings seem to never consider stupid legislation such as too-restrictive of pet limits, mandatory spay/neuter, and breed bans that are NOT good for pet owners or the dogs.  They also never consider enforcement of animal cruelty, or euthenasia rates.

My new quest is to get all of these rankings services to include legislation as a criterion. I don't want cities with irresponsible legislation to be considered dog-friendly cities.  And the more people that realize these types of laws and the harmful affects they have, the better off we'll all be long term as people become aware of cities that are chipping away at their freedoms.  People also need to be aware of euthenasia rates, and that cities that continue to put down thousands of dogs are not dog-friendly...at least not for the dogs.

Education, education, education...seems like there isn't enough of it, and everyone needs it. 

Meanwhile my home town of Kansas City comes in at number 28...thanks in large part to our huge number of animal shelters (again, is that a good thing?).  We're making some progress in terms of dog parks and legislation...but we have a long way to go.

Check the entire 50 ranking -- and also, check out the interactive map to see how each city scored on different criteria.

Comments

[Cheryl]

Obviously the author of this article has absolutely no idea about the horrors of BSL. Take note of the dog in the picture from his article, brindle coat and big head. Uh-huh, are you thinking what I am thinking? I can think of many cities on this so called "dog friendly" list that would not hesitate to dispatch animal control to the home of this dog for no other reason than he looks like a pit bull.

Denver and some other cities on this list, do not deserve to be on this list at all.

[Caveat]

Good analysis, Brent.

I certainly agree with you that the number of shelters is not a good indication of a responsible dog ownership climate.

I also disagree that a larger number of dog owners necessarily makes for a better environment, except for local pet-related businesses. Let's face it, since dog ownership requires a lot of understanding and commitment, more is not necessarily better.

The other points are good ones although the number of veterinarians seems like a bit of a stretch. If there's a market, there will be a vet.

Cheryl, like you I wish these twits in the media would learn to know what they don't know.

If you're taking out Louisville, you have to take out Albuquerque and I agree Denver should never, ever, appear on any list like this. Pretty soon, unless the Senate comes through, the whole State of California will be off every list. I'm glad to see there's nothing from Ohio listed.

I thought the picture might be one of Brent, since I've never met him. I can't believe they used that picture to go with the article.

[Brent]

Ha, Caveat. Good one. I can assure you I'm much less hunky than the guy in the picture (and my wife even probably agrees). But I'm flattered that you might assume as much :)

[Becca]

I am looking to move out west soon and I am wondering where I can find out which cities do not enforce BSL. I have two wonderful dogs, one an American Staffordshire Terrier and the other a pit bull mix. I love to hike and also ski in the winter so I always thought Denver would be the place for me, but now I see that they have BSL, so I definitely don't want to move there. Where can I find information on other cities in Colorado and maybe even Oregon or Washington?? I really want to find a site with lots of information concerning dog-friendliness of the city. I can't afford to move somewhere and then have them pass BSL, forcing me to move again!

[Brent]

Becca,

Most of Colorado is going to be pretty safe. The state actually does not allow BSL, but Denver and Aurora were able to pass it (and survive the legal challenge by their own state) because they are home rule cities. Most of Colorado will be fine. As a general rule, the Pacific Northwest is also generally dog friendly. Your best bet is to contact the city attorney and find out their positions on dangerous dogs and whether or not they have BSL. You may also ask if it's been addressed lately and if he can guide you as to whether the city is generally against BSL or not. One other thing to note when moving, is be sure to also check to see if your new house is in a home-owners association or not, and then find out the home owners associations rules too. Sometimes home owners associations have rules that don't allow for high enough fencing...or have breed bans of their own (separate from the city). So keep that in mind also.

My hope is that by the time you get around to moving, Toledo Vs Tellings will be upheld and people will start realizing how unconstitutional BSL is...