Woodland Residents Who Support Another Dog Park

WOODLAND RESIDENTS WHO SUPPORT ANOTHER DOG PARK

We, the undersigned Woodland residents, strongly support the development of another dog park in our town. Just last year we opened the first fenced off-leash dog park in Woodland, and it has been very successful. We have enjoyed the benefits of a dog park which include:

- Allows dogs to exercise and socialize safely: Puppies and adult dogs need room to run, and enclosed play areas permit them to do so while preventing them from endangering themselves and others (for example, by running into the path of an oncoming vehicle). In addition, dogs who are accustomed to playing with animals and people other than their owners are more likely to be well-socialized and react well toward strangers.

- Promotes responsible dog ownership: Dog parks prevent off-leash animals from infringing on the rights of other community residents and park users such as joggers, small children, and those who may be fearful of dogs. Parks also make it easier for a city to enforce its leash laws, as resident dog owners with park access have no reason to allow their canine companions off-leash when outside of the park.

- Provides an outlet for dog owners to socialize: Dog parks are a great place for owners to meet other people with common interests. The love people share for their dogs reaches beyond economic and social barriers and helps to foster a sense of community. Park users also benefit from the opportunity to ask questions of other owners and find solutions to problems they might be having with their pet.

- Make for a better community by promoting public health and safety: Well-exercised dogs are better neighbors who are less likely to create a nuisance, bark excessively and destroy property. Their presence in the park, along with their owners, also helps to deter crime.

We are concerned about the resistance by a few individuals to building a second dog park in the Spring Lake neighborhood. We would like to note that the city waged this battle long ago, and we can affirm that none of the tired arguments levied in the past, and again today, against this new park are valid.

The argument that the dog park is unsanitary due to feces is invalid as evidenced by the use at the dog park on Second Street, where dog owners are very good about picking up after their dogs, and other park users are not shy about helping owners to notice and remember to pick up after their dog. Moreover, without a dog park and the peer pressure that comes with it, owners are much less likely to pick up after their dog when in an open field or walking down the street.

The argument that the dogs are likely to attack children in the park is invalid, as noted above in the benefits of having a dog park, the law is that dogs are to be leashed until inside the park, and because dog owners have an area designated for off leash play and exercise, there is no reason to disobey this law. Moreover, at the existing dog park, most users keep their dogs on leash until inside. Furthermore, aggressive dogs are not allowed according to the park rules, and again, the dog park users are not shy about self enforcement of this. Finally, an argument that the city will be liable if an attack takes place is simply wrong; the owner of the dog is liable for any damage caused by their dog, not the city.

The argument that the dog park will cause an undue traffic burden on the neighborhood is invalid because a dog park is open for certain hours and park users come and go when it fits their schedule. If the park is used for some other purpose, i.e. a soccer field as has been suggested, or a baseball field, this will draw masses of traffic at specific times, there will be incoming and outgoing traffic all coordinated at the same time, and on weekends it will be more than once or twice a day. This city is growing and the idea of not using the park for some public use is simply not fair to the larger Woodland community.

The argument that the dog park will cost an undue amount of money to maintain is invalid, as any park that goes into this space will require maintenance. Again, the soccer field example works well to make our point: A soccer field can use Astroturf which is expensive initially, but not without maintenance cost after installation, or we can use real grass and re-seed periodically, but this is true of any use of the park. A dog park is not any more expensive to maintain than any other type of park.

The idea that dog parks belong on the outskirts of town is incongruous, because as with all parks, the purpose of the park is for residents to use. By putting the dog park within a residential neighborhood, it ensures that the park users within that neighborhood have access to the park without the use of a car which will actually cut down on the neighborhood traffic as residents can simply walk to the park with their dog on leash. Also, situating the park in a residential area is especially important for the elderly who may have a companion pet, both of whom will benefit from the park, but who are no longer able to drive.

Finally, the argument that it will save the city money by changing the plans is inaccurate. The plans have been in the city master plan since revision in 2004, and at this late date it will be more costly to redesign the entire park rather than simply following through with the bidding process which is scheduled to take place next month.

We respect the fact that some individuals do not like dog parks, but the number of dog parks within municipalities across the country has skyrocketed over the last decade because of the benefits to the community as a whole. The overuse of the only dog park that Woodland currently enjoys is further evidence of the need for more fenced off leash dog parks within the city limits of Woodland. We strive for, and have achieved, a safe, friendly, and healthy dog park environment and the City Council can rest assured that this is what the entire community of Woodland will enjoy at the new dog park in the Spring Lake development.

It is a park for the Community of Woodland, not any one individual.