Dog parks are a staple of urban and suburban areas, a place where dog owners can congregate and converse about the local gossip, or goings-on about the neighborhood. Over the past 12 months, a group of people have come together to propose allocating land for a dog park in Weston and tensions are running high.
Surprisingly, the dog park has met with a strong degree of controversy. For the better part of the last year, there have been multiple hearings involving the dog park. The latest meeting occurred just last week and there is still no resolution about how to proceed.
Maria Proto, a long-time Weston resident started the campaign for the dog park. She has a lot to say. When I spoke to her last week, she said, “One of the benefits that a lot of people don’t realize when they don’t go to dog parks regularly is that it is not just socialization for your animals. So that's one of the benefits for your animals get socialized well and well socialized dogs are usually less aggressive towards other dogs but is also a way for people to go out and meet each other … I would love to meet my fellow Westonites who have dogs. I have also been told by some people that it is very hard to meet people in our town because there aren’t many events in Weston to go to.”
While many residents are in support of the formation of the park, there are many people on the other side. Just ask Bill Theriault. He is worried that if Weston puts money to this dog park it will take money away for many
I think dog parks are a good idea. Dogs need alot of exercise and play time. Many cites and urban areas just dont have the room for that to happen. But there are optoins there many open unused lots, and empty building that could be torn down to create these places. I am a dog owner myself i live in the country were open space is abundant. My dog Neno can run a play all he wants it's good for his health and mental state. When he doesn't get out he gets cranky and chews thing around the house. I grew up in a city of five millon, so i know how hepful a dog park can be to dog owners. You should always have your dog around other people, and animals,
My city or anyother city could do without a dog park if they don't already have one. In "No Dog Park for Muscatine" it say that "It would be a burden for taxpayers and a lawsuit waiting to happen." I agree with this the citizen in my town would have to help fund this project no matter if they support it or not.
Building a dog park will be a very costly project that will impact the public, which in turn can raise taxes. This impact will not go well with taxpayers, especially, with the economy steady raising taxes for other city projects and needs.
The assertion that “our city is in desperate need of a dog park” strikes me as overly dramatic. I would go so far as to say no city “needs” a dog park, but many owners certainly “want” a dog park. The alarming canine conditions cited in “A Dog Park Benefits All” can be addressed without an unnecessary tax burden assumed by pet and non-pet owners for the construction of a dog park in Muscatine.
Some may argue, as the author of the second article does, that the cost of such a project is too great to justify the larger community having to pay for it. A dog park, they may say, is not a necessity, and therefore should not be the taxpayer's responsibility. However, this argument could easily be applied to other public services which few people oppose. Museums, fairgrounds, and even similar parks for children, are all often built and operated by the cities that own them at taxpayer expense.
I believe that a dog park would be an excellent idea for Muscatine, Iowa. Not only would a park benefit the dogs but it would benefit the owners. A dog park would help in raising and caring for the dog. Dogs should be able to play and be free in a space that they will be safe. Not everyone has the space available at their homes. Some people live in apartments that don't have the yard space needed to let the dog run around. Expecially with bigger dogs. They need a lot of room. I can understand why people would be opposed to the idea though. There's always a chance of a dog harming another animal or human. Dogs can carry diseases, fleas, lice, and other harmful things that can be transfered to humans and animals. But if you let yourself
Dog parks are places usually in a protective environment where pet owners can take their dogs for exercise and to socialize with other dogs. Some people believe that dog parks are unpleasant.Other people view dog parks as a benefit to a neighborhood.This issue is complicated.I believe dog parks are great.
We as a comunity have to deside if we can use a dog park. I live in Kalispell Montana and in my case we dont have a dog park. I believe that Kalispell does not need a dog park because of the population. In my exsperince we never needed a dog park we have many parks that you can take your dog to so he/she can run around. When my family and I got my blue nose pit he needed lots of room to rome and play. I took my dog named Spike on long walks, long boarding trips, and
The report against the dog park being built seems to neglect the thought that a person can still sue someone if their animal attacks someone. He states, "Mostly, cities rely on people respecting the parks' rules, even though the rules are often not heeded. This means that if a dog attacks another dog or person in a dog park, the
A dog park should it be built,should it not be built?There are many up's and down's reguarding this topic! Some people would benefit from the park while others would think life's about to end. A dog park would be a great idea to many dog owners including myself. Dog's should have a place to call fun and meet other dogs.
This park may need more regulations; perhaps, a set schedule that states that you can bring your puppy (age 3 months -2years) at a certain time, your oldie at a certain time. Otherwise, it is super annoying to see aggressive/old
A group would have to go talk to the city and get it approved with them, the more people the more the city is going to believe that it is great idea (Weiss-Roessler para 4). More dog loving people will have to help fund the park, the city may help. If the city doesn’t totally fund it there can be fundraisers that will help pay for the fencing, the sign of rules and anything else in the park (Para 6). After the park is up and running there should be volunteers to help run it, they could stop by and make sure it is clean and be the ones to contact if there are any issues with the park. The park
I personally do not think public dog parks should be built in cities. The setting, to begin with, is not ideal. You wouldn’t move into the city with young children and expect to have large yardspace. So, why do dog owners feel entitled to a public park, which the taxpayers have to pay for? This project is not a necessity to spend more than $70,000 on either. And, the excess noise a park would cause could disturb many. Put yourself in the situation of being unable to work or sleep, it wouldn’t be fun.
Although I am not in agreence with the fact that tax-payers would be fitting the bill for this dog park. There is just no benefit going towards non dog-owners. In fact the risks seem so great that they out weigh the benefits.
Having a dog park would be a positive thing for the dogs and their owners. The dogs need exercize for their mental and physical health.They need too learn how too be around other dogs. Sometimes when dogs dont get enough exercize they start showing bad behavior.Having a dog park would also raise property values in communities.