http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1392967.html

Quote :

"Dog parks lose favor in Raleigh Sarah Lindenfeld Hall - Staff Writer Published: Wed, Feb. 04, 2009 06:53AMModified Wed, Feb. 04, 2009 06:44AM E-Mail Print Text Size: tool nameclose tool goes here RALEIGH -- In 2003, the future seemed bright for dog parks in Raleigh. A new off-leash dog area at Millbrook Exchange Park off Spring Forest Road opened. By January 2005, a city committee laid plans to build more. [/b]"The addition of a dog area to a park can bring in vitality and positive activity at a low cost," the committee concluded.[/b] The city has since opened two more parks: one at Oakwood Neighborhood Park near downtown Raleigh in 2006, and another at Carolina Pines Community Park in southwest Raleigh in 2007. Staff Photo by Ethan Hyman - Cody Johnson says he brings his leaping dog, Lou, to Millbrook Exchange Dog Park about twice a week. 'It's awesome to have it,' Johnson said. The city wants a fourth, but residents don't want them near their homes Twice, residents have successfully lobbied against dog parks near their homes. Two years ago, it was the Westlake Pointe neighborhood next to Leesville Community Park. In 2007, the City Council agreed not to include it in plans for the park because of neighbors' concerns. The council encouraged park planners to consider a dog park at the next park planned for northwest Raleigh, which was one off Strickland Road. But neighbors again persuaded council members not to build a dog park there after they raised concerns about safety and noise. The debate over dog parks has become so emotional that N.C. State University researchers the city hired said the dog controversies are interfering with the planning of other important park amenities. They advised the city to decide where to put dog parks separately from other planning details at individual parks. The City Council is reviewing the report. During a meeting before the city's parks board last fall, Quinn Campbell, the mother of two young children, pleaded with board members to remove the dog park from the Strickland Road park plan. She feared that an unleashed dog, running from a car to the park, might hurt someone. "It takes one irresponsible dog owner to scar a child for life," she said. "Some people just aren't going to leash their dogs in a parking lot or otherwise. ... Our children's safety is in your hands. Please be morally responsible and move the unleashed dog park out of Strickland Park." And Rick Russell, another Strickland Park neighbor who lobbied against the dog park, said the areas are better located in more urban areas where dog owners live in apartments or small homes. Russell wonders why the city doesn't adopt Cary's model, where users must purchase an annual membership or day pass before they can enter the dog park. Since dogs are allowed in all the city's parks on leash, he considers dog parks a "boutique service." "I'm not anti-dog park," he said. "I guess my big beef is I don't like to see public funding for dog parks." Campbell thanked council members for striking the dog park from Strickland's plans. Good for everyone? Dog park advocates say the off-leash areas benefit everybody. City officials say there haven't been any reports of conflicts between dogs and people at the parks. There has been one complaint about noise from a neighbor next to Oakwood's dog park. Dog park advocates say dogs who spend time at the off-leash areas are more socialized. They learn how to behave around new people and new dogs. "If everybody took their dog to a dog park when they were puppies, you wouldn't have people getting bitten in the neighborhood," said Rodney Cook, a North Raleigh resident who was instrumental in opening the park at Millbrook Exchange. "They are socialized. They are used to being around other people and other dogs. It's a safety feature." For now, city officials haven't given up on finding another North Raleigh site. sarah.lindenfeld@newsobserver.com or 919-829-8983"

Is there anyone here who would highly object to a dog park opening near you home? If so why? And does anyone know where to find these city council meetings?

2/4/2009 9:03:39 AM

interesting.

i wouldn't mind paying. most people I know don't have dogs and they shouldn't bear the "burden". the entire dog running off a leash and attacking a kid is completely retarded. i see small kids in dog parks all the time basically taunting the animals and even they don't get attacked.




[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 9:07 AM. Reason : running 5 year old + aussie = interesting]

2/4/2009 9:06:51 AM

Quote :

"Two years ago, it was the Westlake Pointe neighborhood next to Leesville Community Park. In 2007, the City Council agreed not to include it in plans for the park because of neighbors' concerns."

The people in that neighborhood are uptight douchebags to begin with. I'm not surprised at all they would bitch about something asinine like this

2/4/2009 9:12:01 AM

Living on the west coast for a while we lived in an area that had probably a dozen dog parks. We were at one all the time. People were very conscious of their dogs and watched over them to ensure they weren't being aggressive or destructive.

When we moved back here, we took our dogs to the Exchange dog park a number times. Totally different experience. People bringing highly aggressive dogs into the park and not paying any attention to what they were doing. Lots of people wouldn't clean up after their dogs either. We stopped going because we had so many bad experiences there, so I can understand why people would object if they had witnessed the same behavior I did.

2/4/2009 9:15:19 AM

Quote :

""It takes one irresponsible dog owner to scar a child for life," she said. "Some people just aren't going to leash their dogs in a parking lot or otherwise. ... Our children's safety is in your hands. Please be morally responsible and move the unleashed dog park out of Strickland Park.""

Welcome to the pussification of America.

^ I can understand your point. There are some real bastards out there. If someone isn't a responsible pet owner they should be tossed out of the park.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 9:16 AM. Reason : ]

2/4/2009 9:15:30 AM

Do you have to pick up after your pets in a dog park?

For that guy that said he used to live near some, was smell ever a problem?

I don't know one way or the other, I'm just asking.

2/4/2009 9:42:49 AM

Yes, you pick up after your dog at the dog park. And while I've never lived near a dog park, the actual dog park itself doesn't smell, so I don't see why the area around it would.

2/4/2009 9:44:11 AM

BUILD MORE PRISONS!!!11!!!11

But not in my backyard!

2/4/2009 9:49:34 AM

Quote :

"the entire dog running off a leash and attacking a kid is completely retarded."

Wat? Dude, you're retarded if you think this doesn't happen.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 9:55 AM. Reason : grammar]

2/4/2009 9:54:57 AM

yea, we should probably get rid of sidewalks near roads also

ya know, for the times when cars leave the road and hit people walking

shit happens all the time

2/4/2009 10:33:06 AM

I would object to the noise if there was one right by my house. You'd be a fool to think those dogs wouldn't be like an alarm clock that you can't shut off on mornings when you want to sleep in.

Also, I agree with this:

Quote :

"Russell wonders why the city doesn't adopt Cary's model, where users must purchase an annual membership or day pass before they can enter the dog park. Since dogs are allowed in all the city's parks on leash, he considers dog parks a "boutique service." "I'm not anti-dog park," he said. "I guess my big beef is I don't like to see public funding for dog parks." "

I have to pay a couple bucks every time I swim at Pullen Park. Why not make dog owners pay for their dogs to have special facilities? As far as I know there are no dog taxes by the City of Raleigh, but if any taxes are levied I'm sure they are minuscule.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 10:47 AM. Reason : l]

2/4/2009 10:46:04 AM

Quote :

"big beef"

ha

seriously though some of these reasons are dumb

2/4/2009 10:53:20 AM

I'd love to have a dog park in my neighborhood. Having dog parks in your area means more well socialized and thoroughly exercised dogs. That means less overall aggressive behavior typically.

And although I'm not against public funding, I wouldn't mind paying a small yearly fee for a dog park.

2/4/2009 11:07:23 AM

Yeah this is pretty retarded. I can see the need to have them more in areas where owners may not have a yard for them to run in. But of all the times I have been to the park with my gf's dogs we have never had any trouble.

That mother of two sounds like she's just passing on her own fear of dogs to her children, which is sad. I can't tell you how many times I've heard parents tell their kids "you better not go over there, you know that dog will bite you" just passing on their own stubborn ignorance. I understand that some people's dogs are aggressive. But that is usually the problem of the owner, which is more of an oversight problem because those people probably won't watch their dog well with or without the park, and probably shouldn't have one.

Telling people it should be a "boutique service" is just as bad. In that case I don't want my money to go to schools cause I don't want to have children right now. Obviously in the country (right now) having children is a choice. Keeping them and raising them is a choice. So why should I pay for your kids to grow, learn, have a place to play. Keep them in your backyards. I mean god forbid public funding be used to make the publics life better. Considering how little public funded stuff I use, the dog park probably consists of 75-80% of those facilities. If noise is really the only concern then just limit its hours to like 630 or 7am to 8 or 9pm. Reasonable I would think as most people are up or out of the house during that time.

2/4/2009 11:10:21 AM

no shit. this isn't some megacrowded city that requires publicly funded areas specifically for pets. people have yards here. screw dog parks.

2/4/2009 11:11:52 AM

Are you against publicly funded playgrounds and parks for children in Raleigh?

I mean, people could put up a swingset in their yard..

Unless the city is spending a shitton of money in the land, playgrounds and dogparks cost relatively little to build and maintain and they bring quite a bit to the community. I don't see the problem.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:16 AM. Reason : d]

2/4/2009 11:15:44 AM

Umm, not everyone has the facilities of a backyard. And while yes they could still walk their dog, it would not be allowed to run free off a leash... which would kinda suck for a lifestyle. Not to mention that many of those people who have yards don't have them fenced. So now you will get complaints of loose dogs running around because you know those same people who don't leash their dogs for the short walk from the car to the park, won't leash them in their own yard.

2/4/2009 11:17:24 AM

Quote :

"Telling people it should be a "boutique service" is just as bad. In that case I don't want my money to go to schools cause I don't want to have children right now. Obviously in the country (right now) having children is a choice. Keeping them and raising them is a choice. So why should I pay for your kids to grow, learn, have a place to play."

Because healthy and educated children make the world exponentially better.
Because the only reason you are able to contribute to society is because of the people before you who helped create the opportunity.
Because 99.9% dogs will never contribute to society regardless of whether they are locked in a pen 24 hours a day or allowed to run in a dog park.

Your argument is terrible.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:19 AM. Reason : l]

2/4/2009 11:18:53 AM

Dogs need to run, they also need socialization with other people and animals. Dog parks are a great place to do this. So, don't get rid of them. If funding is an issue, I'm sure most dog owners would pay a minimal fee to use them. Otherwise, these people need to stop complaining, this is ridiculous. There are more flagrant abuses of your tax fees to complain about that the measly portion that goes to dog parks.

2/4/2009 11:19:14 AM

on the issue of city taxes for dogs, you are supposed to license your dog with the City of Raleigh and it costs $7 for neutered, $14 for fertile. it looks like it's just a one time thing though.
http://www.petdata.com/cs/ral/fees.htm

we pay taxes on our dogs in rocky mount (a "property" tax) and there is a limit of 2 per household in the city. we have absolutely no services for pets other than our teeny tiny poor excuse for a pound. i would kill for a dog park regardless of who pays for it (taxes or annual/per day fees).

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:24 AM. Reason : ]

2/4/2009 11:20:47 AM

I'm not against it as I do plan in the future to have children. I am just saying that if people want to argue that they shouldn't publicly fund the dog parks because a few people don't own dogs, then why should they publicly fund a children's area, when many people don't have children.

If you want to talk cost I would think a children's area costs slightly more to maintain, since their are safety standards and up keep of the swing sets, etc. Whereas a dog park is mainly just some fencing, a few trash cans and some plastic bags. I mean I like that they put the tennis balls out there, but I could just bring my own.

2/4/2009 11:20:56 AM

Quote :

"Umm, not everyone has the facilities of a backyard. "

Maybe "not everyone" needs to get a dog then.

Quote :

"I am just saying that if people want to argue that they shouldn't publicly fund the dog parks because a few people don't own dogs, then why should they publicly fund a children's area, when many people don't have children."

The vast majority of the public doesn't own dogs. It's not just "a few people."

On the contrary, we were all children once and we all benefited from opportunities for education and enrichment. It's the foundation of a good society.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:23 AM. Reason : l]

2/4/2009 11:21:16 AM

There are any number of publicly funded services that only a portion of the population use. He chose schools, but it could have been damn near anything. Hell, local governments routinely pay millions for shit like sculptures or modern art pieces that a good portion of the population is indifferent to.

I would argue that for the small amount of money it takes to build and maintain a dog park, the public good far outweighs it. That public good could come from anything from more socialized dogs and by extension happier owners to having a public place to meet friends that is outside. When I go to the dogpark, I routinely invite friends with dogs and then hang out with them while my dogs are running around.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:25 AM. Reason : d]

2/4/2009 11:24:48 AM

Actually my argument is not that bad. I want my dog to be healthy and have a good life. Dogs who live in a pen 24x7 do not have a good life, that is pretty ignorant to think.

Assuming I didn't want to have children, why would I care to invest in them? They make the world better, but at that point I'm dead and gone, if I don't want to have a child then why should I spend money on something I'm never going to see and don't care about. At least with the dog, I get see it enjoy its life. I'm just saying that if you want to pick and choose what the public should fund based souly on your own life, you're not really thinking of the better good. That's what this Russell person is doing by saying they don't want to fund it basically because they don't have one.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

2/4/2009 11:27:45 AM

^^ Then it sounds like something you shouldn't mind paying a nominal fee for; not unlike me paying $2 to swim at Pullen.

Quote :

"Dogs who live in a pen 24x7 do not have a good life, that is pretty ignorant to think. "

Show me where I said they would live a good life. It would be a terrible life, but the point is the same. Society isn't going to be any better or worse for it. Keep you kids in a pen 24x7 and then let them out into the world when they turn 18 and see what happens.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:34 AM. Reason : l]

2/4/2009 11:28:09 AM

I don't think anyone has said that if it came down to it, they wouldn't pay to keep them open. They're just arguing that the justification for not having them publicly funded ("not everyone has dogs") is ridiculous and can be applied to half of things people are taxed for.

2/4/2009 11:30:23 AM

Like I said, I certainly wouldn't mind paying a fee for one. In fact, I would almost prefer it because it would keep out shitty dog owners who aren't willing to invest some of their money in a service like that.

To compare a public indoor pool which likely cost millions to build and still thousands a month to keep up, and a small dogpark which might cost a few thousand to build and at most a few hundred to maintain isn't really fair. Even assuming that they are both boutique services. Make no mistake, your $2 fee to use the pool isn't even coming close to paying the bills there.

We all live in a community and we should be willing to have some of our funds pay for stuff that we may never personally use. We are essentially paying for the opportunity to use it should we ever want to. Having those services available makes our community a more desirable place to live.

2/4/2009 11:34:04 AM

Quote :

"Is there anyone here who would highly object to a dog park opening near you home?"

I object to the government providing services like this. If a private owner wants to do it, fine.

I wouldn't want a dog park opening near my home because I'm a very light sleeper, and wouldn't want to deal with the noise. I'm sure I'd complain and call the police a lot if one did open close to my home.

2/4/2009 11:35:58 AM

^^^^ Why pay $2 to swim at Pullen when you could build your own pool in your backyard? At least that is a good example of partial funding. Though considering once again how little it takes to keep up a dog park, $2 from a single owner could probably cover over a years worth of time at the park assuming they go once or twice a week with 1 or 2 dogs. The only thing out there that I can think of that costs money besides the fencing is the water.

So when you said earlier that some people shouldn't have dogs, are you saying now that because a person wants to live in an apt or some other dwelling with no yard, they should be disqualified from having a dog? So because of where a person lives they should then be unable to choose to do something... sounds like a pretty big can of worms to open.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : ^]

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

2/4/2009 11:39:32 AM

I know everyone talking about the noise hasn't ever actually been at a dog park, because for the most part dogs interact with each other silently. You may get an occasional bark because of a scuffle or something, but it amazes me every time I go to the dog park that there are dozens of dogs in there and they are all running around without barking.

You are much more likely to get awakened by having a neighbor in your vicinity with a dog chained up behind his house that will bark at anything that drives by. Maybe if that neighbor had a dog park nearby, he would take his dog there to get socialized and then his dog wouldn't bark at everything that moved because he isn't so damned starved for attention.

2/4/2009 11:41:33 AM

Vix would you still be opposed if some time restraints were imposed on the parks usage? Obviously there are many questions like, how close could one actually be built, but I would have to assume that if it were outside of 1/2 mile and limited times for use to normal daytime hours as I had mentioned before it would at least be slightly easier to deal with... that would be if you didn't sleep during the day though.

^very much true. One of the dogs we have now barked whenever it was excited about anything, even just meeting someone new. Taking it to a place where it can run around and meet new people, dogs calmed it down a lot.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:45 AM. Reason : ^]

2/4/2009 11:43:41 AM

Quote :

"Are you against publicly funded playgrounds and parks for children in Raleigh?"

comparing dogs to human children... not even a discussion i'm having.

2/4/2009 11:44:13 AM

as a dog owner, i'm against public funding of dog parks.

Cary has a good model, Raleigh should follow suit.

2/4/2009 11:46:25 AM

hah nor should it be, it was simply an example of publicly funding something that not everyone has a personal stake in. (ie. no children of their own)


[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:48 AM. Reason : .]

2/4/2009 11:46:58 AM

Just go to Pullen Park and let your dog loose on the baseball fields

thats what I see most people doing

2/4/2009 11:47:30 AM

Quote :

"^^^^ Why pay $2 to swim at Pullen when you could build your own pool in your backyard? "

Because I'm not fiscally retarded.

Quote :

"So when you said earlier that some people shouldn't have dogs, are you saying now that because a person wants to live in an apt or some other dwelling with no yard, they should be disqualified from having a dog? So because of where a person lives they should then be unable to choose to do something... sounds like a pretty big can of worms to open."

I never said you shouldn't own a dog just because you live in an apartment, nor am I saying that now. If a person is willing to make the sacrifices required for their dog to have a good life then don't let me stop you. If you can't take care of it then you absolutely should not have a dog regardless of where you live.

You sound like you have an entitlement attitude though so I'll go ahead and say it; you're not entitled to a dog. You don't need a dog. If you can't take care of a dog, if you can't provide it with a proper home and proper room, then you shouldn't have a dog.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:57 AM. Reason : l]

2/4/2009 11:47:44 AM

Quote :

", but I would have to assume that if it were outside of 1/2 mile and limited times for use to normal daytime hours as I had mentioned before it would at least be slightly easier to deal with"

I would dislike having a dog park near my house no matter what hours it was open. People should be able to take a nap in their own homes whenever they want.

However, I'm much more staunchly oppposed to government funding for parks of any kind.

2/4/2009 11:48:22 AM

Quote :

"comparing dogs to human children... not even a discussion i'm having."

good try... I'm not comparing dogs to kids.

I'm comparing the idea of the public paying for something that only a small portion of the public uses. Dog parks and playgrounds both fall into that category. Dog parks are as much for the owners (who are typically humans FYI) as they are for the dogs. The list goes on though... Rose gardens, public art, fountains, libraries, schools. Not everyone uses all of those services, so by god, only people that use them should pay for them.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:49 AM. Reason : d]

2/4/2009 11:48:47 AM

Yes, skack, then you understand why many people don't want to have to build a fence in the back yard when we could easily support a public dog park.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 11:49 AM. Reason : .]

2/4/2009 11:49:02 AM

Because their entitlement attitude compels them to feel that society should subsidize the animal that they chose to go out and buy/adopt? Good point.

2/4/2009 12:05:37 PM

Quote :

"Because their entitlement attitude compels them to feel that society should subsidize the animalhobby that they chose to go out and buy/adoptpartake in? Good point."

Your $2 a visit doesn't pay for the pool or the park there. It might help to offset some of the costs, but it damn sure isn't self sustaining.

2/4/2009 12:07:35 PM

Yes much like your entitlement that compels you to think that society should subsidize your ability to swim to be healthy when you could just as easily jog for free on any sidewalk... or park.

[Edited on February 4, 2009 at 12:11 PM. Reason : .]

2/4/2009 12:08:54 PM

i love these arguements. why shouldn't these be funded by taxpayers? so much stuff i don't use is funded by my taxes so why not let some of it go to something that i can use.

also, dog parks fit in along with any other little park. they have benches, some have little picnic areas, and people go to enjoy the environment of seeing all the dogs run around and play. you don't have to own a dog to go to a dog park, so why pin it as something like that?

2/4/2009 12:15:31 PM

Quote :

"why shouldn't these be funded by taxpayers? so much stuff i don't use is funded by my taxes so why not let some of it go to something that i can use. "

I don't think any of that stuff you don't use should be funded by taxpayers either

2/4/2009 12:16:54 PM

You know I'm starting to like the way Vix thinks don't fund anything and let it all come from private funds... works for me, wouldn't be a bad experiment to see what people really want to spend their money on.

2/4/2009 12:20:03 PM

Quote :

"Cary has a good model, Raleigh should follow suit."

How does Cary's work, I'm guessing pay to use?

I would like this if it meant better upkeep or maybe someone to help enforce rules. exchange park is ok, but no one cleans up after their damn dogs take shits everywhere.

2/4/2009 12:24:51 PM

Vix, you're a fucking moron (which most people in here already know). A dog park isn't that loud at all. Its not a kennel. Its a place where animals run around and play. Its certainly quieter than living off any relatively busy road. Maybe I should complain about the basketball court through the woods behind my house, b/c the ball hitting the pavement is loud. Dog parks aren't loud. If you ever went to one you'd realize this.

Quote :

"Just go to Pullen Park and let your dog loose on the baseball fields thats what I see most people doing"

Not everyone owns a dog that is obedient off leash so feel free to be the one to catch my dog for me. And don't tell me its my fault he's not obedient off leash, b/c several breeds (including my own) are very stubborn and won't listen in an open environment. A lot of dogs also have no fear of cars, so you need to keep them isolated from roads.

A dog park is a big (sometimes slightly wooded) area covered in mulch and surrounded by a fence. It has a few trashcans and plastic bags for poo (donated from HT). I have no doubt its probably the least expensive part of a public park to maintain BY FAR.

2/4/2009 12:26:49 PM

yep, pay to use, either via annual membership or on a per-use basis.

but, i'm not certain if there is any city subsidization or if it is completely self-supported.

2/4/2009 12:27:14 PM

What kinds of cost is it to the user though? Like TKE said, it isn't exactly an expensive endeavor to put a fence around some trees, throw some trashcans down and call it a dog park.

2/4/2009 12:30:44 PM

Quote :

"Wat? Dude, you're retarded if you think this doesn't happen."

No, no it doesn't. Show me one record of this happening in any Ralegh/Cary dog park.

2/4/2009 12:32:07 PM