Dogged Determination
Ten years and still no dog park. The reasons given at council last week — “no consensus,” concerns about the reaction of “the neighbors” — could apply to just about any delayed project in A2.
Venerated Chicago columnist Mike Royko once argued for the use of public jogging paths by horseback riders on the grounds that “First, I like horses. Second, I do not like joggers.” Well, we like dogs, and we do not like NIMBYs. So here’s two public relations tips we offer to the dog people:
- Cite best-cities lists based on dog-friendliness, like this one, and point out that A2 isn’t on them. You have to speak the language of Ann Arborites, and if there’s one thing they can’t resist, it’s an ordered list of cities, no matter how obscure the source (”We made ebunions.com’s list of best cities for people with bunions!”) or slipshod the research methodology (”They ranked sales of Dr. Scholls divided by the square of the number of shoe trees.”)
- Enlist a canine speaker for public comment at City Council. “Our next speaker is Buster.” Okay, dogs are notoriously unlikely to respect the three-minute allotted time, and you might earn a pithy rebuke from city attorney Stephen Postema. But surely your Airedale will have more to say than Blaine.
Mayor Heiftje, will you make eye contact with me? Roof!
posted by Dale on June 11th, 2007 at 12:56 pm eThis issue gets me riled up every time. I (like so many “dog” people) am such low-burden taxpayer that it is galling to pay for a book-on-tape, music, and video section in the public library, arts programs, tennis courts, rollerblade and biking trails, picnic tables, grills, etc. etc. etc. — none of which I use — and somehow the one thing I want out of my city is a problem with “the neighbors.” Personally, I really hate paying for playgrounds — I think they’re ugly, they’re noisy and generally annoying. But I deal with it because I recognize that other people don’t mind them and some people like them, because that’s part of living in a community and parents need places to take their kids. It would be one thing if the offered no other tax-payer supported amenities, but given the kinds of things that get picked up by the public, the fact that there can’t be one small bit of land with a fence where dogs can run around is just ridiculous. Either abolish the leash laws, or create a space where people can let dogs exercise.
posted by Anna on June 11th, 2007 at 3:13 pm eThis is just sad. NYC, densest city in the nation, finds room for dog runs and allows for off-leash hours in parks in neighborhoods with few runs. Madison, WI has a beautiful, huge dog park. WTF, Ann Arbor?
posted by Scott T. on June 11th, 2007 at 4:14 pm eThanks for the suggestions!
We may have to disguise one of our more eloquent canines as a service animal and sneak her into City Hall for public commentary.
posted by arbordog on June 11th, 2007 at 4:56 pm e1. “the dog people”? Well. What a thing to say.
2. Equal time at AACC public comments for cats! And parakeets!!
3. At the theater yesterday, I saw a large display/poster for the “Underdog” movie coming out soon, with the slogan “One Nation Under Dog”. Blasphemous, maybe, but still mildly clever nevertheless.
posted by David Boyle on June 11th, 2007 at 7:20 pm eEven if there were a dog park, we’d still do what we do now — which is to let our (timid, harmless, but energetic dog) tear around a bit off leash (illegally, yes I know) during non-busy hours and on trails where we usually don’t see another soul and so, bother nobody. We’re not going to drive across town to a dog park when we can walk to the one nearby in a couple of minutes.
posted by mw on June 11th, 2007 at 8:20 pm eI’m not feeling so dog-friendly these days — there’s a little yapper that lives in the apartment below me, and some jerks brought their dirty little dog into the pool AND hot tub at my aprtment complex last night — but I can see an argument for dog parks/runs, and I don’t think it’s an unreasonable request.
I also think dog parks tend to be ugly and kind of gross. (Correct me if the vision involves something else, but every dog park I’ve seen has been a fenced in patch of dirt. Dirt that a bunch of dogs have peed in.) However, if it would encourage people to take their dogs there to run around off leash, I’d be all for several of them conveniently placed around town. I’m not really convinced they would (see above post, for example), so I’m not sure what to think on the dog park issue.
I think the real problem tends to be that obnoxious dogs are owned by obnoxious people who haven’t trained them well, and there’s no easy fix for that.
posted by Kelli on June 12th, 2007 at 1:02 am eYes there will always be people who will walk there dogs off-leash. We don’t do it with ours because of safety issues — one tree-rat across the street, and we could have our pups hit by a car. Some dogs are well behaved enough, but our little monsters are worse when they are under-exercised. Even riding with them on our bikes isn’t exercise enough. The only thing that seems to work is chasing a ball off leash with the chuckit. Dogs that have annoying qualities tend to be dogs that are not getting enough exercise. They go stir crazy, get yippy, and tend to be jumpy bastards.
Perhaps, if there was a neighborhood off-leash park, the above (mw) would go there to walk…perhaps not. Many people, not all, will choose the safe and legal option. When we lived in St. Louis we would drive 2 miles everday to go to the park, and our neighbors thanked us for well behaved quiet dogs in the hood. Now with the price of gas, and time constraints, we are lucky to get to Saline twice a week.
As far as the list maker noted — heres a few more:
posted by christina on June 12th, 2007 at 12:11 pm eOlathe KS, De Sota KS, Shawnee Mission KS, Las Vegas, Champaign-Urbana, St. Louis, — all these places, are not exactly my cup of tea. I feel much more at home in Ann Arbor, but, heck, My dogs like these places better. On this issue, they are way more progressive and ahead of the times than Ann Arbor.
Ann Arbor is one of the most walkable cities in the region. Ever hear of taking your dog for a walk?
Leash rule: big deal. Do you think the cops are going to come get you if you go to West Park or some other large place like that when it’s not busy and you let your dog run?
I wonder where most of the people clamoring for the dog park live. If the majority of them live in apartments and they don’t have backyards, then their desire to have a place for their dog to run is justified, but if these are homeowners from the various neighborhoods or outer reaches of A2 where you have backyards–sometimes expansive ones–then I’m not feeling too bad for them.
Plus, as someone already mentioned, one dog park won’t really solve too many people’s problems. Most people would still have to drive there just to let their dog run. I guess they could put one down by Parkard/US23 way out of the way just so everyone would have to drive to let their dog run.
posted by Brian on June 12th, 2007 at 1:12 pm eOf course Brian hit on the key to the dog park quandary: finding out where dog owners live. Hell, I’d put up a Web site for 6 months and encourage all dog owners in the city to register their address (or just look at the dog licensing database, if it’s accessible) and find the locations of the three parks or unused city-owned land that would serve the most dog owners, say within a mile or two. Figure out which has the most support from the dog people, which has the least opposition or already-programmed use and there’s your park.
Ten years for a 6-month project. Jesus.
posted by Dale on June 12th, 2007 at 1:21 pm eSo my father was walking his dog in our neighborhood and some roofer that was working said, “Hey mister, don’t you know there is a leash law in this city?”
My father turned to him and said, “Yeah, but I don’t think I’ll make you wear one.”
Okay, dumb story… sorry. But it is not nearly as ridiculous as the post above that complains about dog parks being a “fenced in field of dirt where dogs pee”. IF YOU DO NOT LIKE DOG PARKS- DON’T TAKE YOUR DOG TO ONE. If you don’t like dogs because your neighbor downstairs keeps hers locked up 24/7, then create a solution… maybe a place where the dog can go get attention and exercise needed so it won’t be so needy and noisy downstairs. For instance a dog park, where these social mammals can run and get the attention, love, and exercise needed to be sane. Sane dogs are not to be feared. It is the dogs that are kept in enclosed areas, fighting natural urges to run, play, and relieve themselves, that should be feared.
It is already painfully obvious what happens when humans stop walking, running, and playing… we become obese, depressed, and watch too much television. Dogs are at least smart enough to whine and protest this inaction.
posted by EJ on June 12th, 2007 at 2:04 pm eThe great thing about dog areas is that the dogs can play with all the other dogs that show up. Then their owners can socialize with other dog owners as well. And no one can walk a dog fast enough to make up for lack of space to run off leash. I’ve never owned a dog, actually, but I used to live in a competing college town (where drivers and bike commuters peacefully co-existed, but that’s another rant) with several lovely dog areas filled with wood chips, the occasional bench or picnic table, and tons of happily socializing dogs and people. Doesn’t seem like such a crazy thing. How can a town be so self-satisfied and have no dog park?
posted by AK on June 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pm eIt is time for this–a sane, safe alternative to the scofflaws who let their dogs run in parks off leash. Ann Arbor should join the list of progressive cities that have dog runs and parks. I don’t want to suddenly come upon an unfriendly dog (most large dog owners overrate their dog’s restraint, In my opinion) and I’m tired of seeing Ann Arborites break their own ordinances instead of overturning them or providing better options for dog owners. I have been bitten by off-leash dogs and I recognize the need for dogs to run in an environment where they can get exercise and fresh air, play frisbee and wear themselves out. Having this option makes sense and at low-cost for the city.
posted by JT on June 12th, 2007 at 2:26 pm eDear Brian
We took on major debt to get a yard because we were in one of these apartment complexes. We bought a house because we were going crazy over in Park Place apartments, one of the more dog friendly places I’ve found to rent in Ann Arbor. The mortgage on our house is actually cheaper than the monthly rent for a house with a yard in Ann Arbor….
No walking just doesn’t do it, nor does bike riding. I used to jog with our dogs, and they would look at me and want to keep going. Our one dog, the Pharaoh-Pei can run basically non-stop for hours.
Our yard is nice, its long and fenced. It may be one of the longest, skinniest yards in the city, but it in no ways provides the same amount of energy expenditure and socialization that can be found at a dog park.
posted by christina on June 12th, 2007 at 2:54 pm eI think off-leash hours in a variety of parks would be a much better solution than dog parks. We want people to walk to exercise their dogs, not drive to exercise their dogs.
posted by mw on June 12th, 2007 at 3:38 pm eI’m sorry, but pets are pretty stupid. They are cute and all, but pointless, exepensive, and your schedule then has to revolve completely around how often they need to pee. They don’t deserve special rights.
The “dog park” in my neighborhood in NYC is, yes, a fenced-in patch of mud, that mainly seems to serve for lonely people to have an excuse to talk to their neighbors.
Ever since I’ve moved to NYC I’ve been surrounded by “dog people.” Everywhere. They are like surrogate children for yuppies. People even hire “dog walkers” in large supply. I’m starting to think dog-parks attract such people, who tend to be the same folks who, you know, patronize “pet boutiques.” People take their damned pets into bars, stores, whatever here.
Although, given the rest of Ann Arbor’s general tastes/values, I’m sort of surprised there isn’t a dog park, as much as it isn’t my scene whatsoever.
posted by Brandon on June 12th, 2007 at 7:38 pm eThat was a particularly gloomy, indignant rant, Brandon. I bet you’d be more cheerful if you had a puppy.
posted by FAA on June 13th, 2007 at 10:35 am eFor the record, a dog park is not about “special rights” for dogs. It is a service for dog-owning tax-paying humans. We enjoy recretaing with our pets, for whatever reasons, and would like some of our tax money to go to facilities that allow us to do that with other people who also like recreating with their pets in a safe and legal environment. I understand that you think it’s pathetic for people to seek interactions with other people who have similar interests, but I like the idea of providing spaces for people to talk to their neighbors, particularly those with similar interests.
There are plenty of things that people do in parks that have little more “point” than playing with their dogs or interacting with other dog owners. I personally don’t enjoy baseball or golf. Those sports can be quite expensive (and to me uninteresting) ways to get exercise. Yet baseball fields and golf courses seem like perfectly reasonable park facilities. I don’t think you would suggest that this provides “special rights” to baseballs or even to baseball players. Parks exist to provide places for residents to congregate and take part in activities that they enjoy. You know, recreation.
Please give up the tired “you treat your dogs like children so you are irrelevant” line of argument. Aside from the fact that many people have both children and dogs, there is very little logic to this statement. Seriously, if we thought our dogs were children we’d be demanding millions for obedience schools, subsidized kibble programs, and a set of super-safe chew toys in every public space. All we are asking for is some chain-link fence, a trash can, and the legal ability to use them. And if some people have pets but no kids, is that really any concern to you or to policy makers? No it’s just a soundbyte argument meant to marginalize a large group of tax-payers.
Finally, as you point out those tax-payers often have a good deal of spending power and right now there is little incentive to keep that spending power in Ann Arbor. We drive to Saline several times per week to use one of their dog parks and we often spend money there on gas, groceries, and dinner. We even considered moving to Saline so that we could walk to the park. Why wouldn’t Ann Arbor want to encourage us to keep that money here? Are you as outraged by people who spend money on sporting equipment, concert tickets, art, or other non-essential interests?
posted by arbordog on June 13th, 2007 at 12:55 pm eBrandon, your temperament and comment nicely encapsulate everything I don’t miss about people in Michigan.
posted by Nick on June 13th, 2007 at 1:41 pm eHe’s a New Yorker now:)
posted by jcp2 on June 13th, 2007 at 1:46 pm earbordog does have a point. Baseball diamonds, pools and other recreational facilities are tax-funded amenities for those who enjoy such things, why not provide a tax-funded amenity for dog owners?
posted by tom on June 13th, 2007 at 2:23 pm eMaybe they just need to remind the locals that the dog park will be less than 10 stories tall. That should pacify them.
posted by Nick on June 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pm eI’m with brandon; pets are stupid and obnoxious. About the only thing I hate more than a wailing child is a barking dog.. or is it the other way around?
posted by stc on June 13th, 2007 at 4:10 pm eChristina, I understand that even with a big backyard (I grew up with multiple dogs at a house with a narrow but large urban backyard similar to yours) some dogs still crave more exercise. I think the next poster, mw, came up with a reasonable solution. I don’t think there could be anything wrong with that solution. As long as the pet owners pick up the waste, and as long as everyone else knows that it is off-leash hours so that no one with a dog phobia is in the park at that time, that proposal should work fine. Let’s use our many, existing parks!
posted by Brian on June 13th, 2007 at 4:57 pm eOwned.
My neighborhood association is setting up a dog park for the people who live here. Or at least we are in the planning stages, but I think it will go forward. This is here in the city, btw.
posted by LittleB on June 13th, 2007 at 7:11 pm eAdd several cities in North Carolina (Chapel Hill, Durham, Raleigh, Carrboro) as well as New Haven, Farmington, and Hamden CT to lists of places that have dog parks. It’s really not that radical an idea, but if it were pitched that way, maybe Arborites would go for it.
posted by Anna on June 13th, 2007 at 8:20 pm eAnn Arborites are overrated
posted by Ypsidweller on June 13th, 2007 at 10:29 pm emore like ann arbor dog owners are overrated.
go to the corner of pleasant lake rd and ann arbor/saline, wood chips, the whole nine, a shitting and pissing mecca for dogs.
posted by nymbani yangu on June 13th, 2007 at 10:56 pm eLet me clarify a bit on my comment about the grossness of dog parks. I don’t personally care about that factor much. I don’t even like dogs, so I’ll certainly never own one, and thus, I’ll never have to *really* worry about the unsanitary nature of taking my dog to a dog park. The point I didn’t explicitly make: good luck getting the neighbors to get behind putting a patch of dog piss dirt in “their” parks.
That said, I don’t actually think it’s a bad idea, assuming people would actually USE the dog parks, and I’d see fewer off-leash dogs elsewhere. I’m for providing reasonable facilities, and I think dog parks are reasonable. But there are issues to get around, like visual appeal — if dog parks were pretty, I’m sure Ann Arbor would have plenty. As has been pointed out already, you also need to implement a system that’s actually useable, especially as a first step.
I also think it’s somewhat unfortunate that there’s going to be some opposition based on the bad publicity from irresponsible pet owners, like the various incompetents I have for neighbors. (I think there’s something of a parallel with bike advocacy issues, for which irresponsible bikers are problematic, in terms of public image.)
posted by Kelli on June 14th, 2007 at 1:46 am eI think Kelli hits the nail right on the head. Relations between dog owners and non-dog owners in Ann Arbor have gotten fairly bad over the past few years. I can’t blame non-dog people for thinking we are irresponsible and scofflaws since the people you see off-leash are by definition breaking the law and some are just plain stupid about how they do it. Those of us who don’t break the law (or who find ways to do so that don’t impact other folks) are the ones who are would be served by this. The parallel with cyclists is perfect, as a regular bike commuter myself I get furious when I see other bikers doing stupid things because it makes the roads less safe for the rest of us.
Dog parks don’t have to be nasty. The Swift Run plan is supposed to be quite large so the grass won’t get torn up. Granted it’s on top of the old landfill so it will never be pretty, but it can’t be much worse than it is now. There are also some smaller parks that manage to stay fairly nice. Saline’s Mill Pond is ok, they cordon off half of it at a time and cycle the use to keep the grass healthy.
As for off-leash hours, I think this is an interesting idea and may be a good partial solution, but I have some serious concerns.
First is safety and liability. Without a fence I’m not sure I would use it since a squirrel or other fuzzy critter running by could draw my dogs out into the street. It also means more opportunities for people to accidentally come into contact with dogs and be frightened. At one of the recent public meetings an opponent said that he carries pepper spray and tells other people to do the same so that they can mace off-leash dogs. It’s an outside chance, but what happens when one of those people doesn’t realize that an area has been designated for off-leash time and attacks one of our dogs or even one of us? It will only take one bad incident to end the off-leash hours.
There is also a major problem with scheduling. I don’t want to end up in a situation where various groups are competing for park hours. I just don’t want to restrict anybody else’s use of the parks. Beyond that, it is clear that dog-owners are a pretty low priority. Therefore it is hard to imagine that we will get a good set of hours. Only being allowed 8:00-9:00 AM on alternating Thursday’s isn’t really a good solution. And who could blame other park users for not wanting to give up the prime evening and weekend hours.
The benefit of defined use-specific space is that dog-owners can use it any time that fits into their schedules and multiple times per week while not impacting other park users.
I agree with Brian that we should use existing park lands. There are over 2,000 acres of land in the park system, much of which is unprogrammed and some of which is even unmowed. The Ward Park plan that was recently torpedoed was supposed to use one acre on five acres of unmowed land. But due to its proximity to S Main dog owners wanted a fence and due to its proximity to homes neighbors wanted a fence. The planning office estimated the costs at around $15k, but was only willing to put $5k into it.
I think the ideal situation would be some combination of a fence in at least one location and either neighborhood runs or rotating hours in places that people could walk. But right now we’re just fighting to get anything.
posted by arbordog on June 14th, 2007 at 9:52 am eRe: Kelli’s comment, it’s funny to me that a town largely composed of dilapidated houses with dirt yards and urine-soaked couches on the porches would refuse a dog park because it’s unsightly.
posted by Nick on June 14th, 2007 at 11:43 am eThose are actually the minority, but they do tend to cluster on the busier, more used streets, giving the illusion that they are the majority.
I can’t say I’m anti-dogpark, but it’s certainly not one of the burning topics of the day for me.
posted by Chris on June 14th, 2007 at 12:07 pm eA dog run takes up less space than a baseball diamond or disc golf course or soccer field, and probably costs as much or less to install and maintain - and certainly costs less than a golf course or pool. Why shouldn’t we have dog runs in parks? Wanting part of the park system that you can take your dog to is every bit as reasonable as wanting a part you can take your baseball bat to - and dog knows the A2 parks system has enough space to fit all sorts of uses into.
The ranting part: I’ve never been a dog owner, and very much hate when I’m in a park and have big off-leash dogs charge at me, their owners saying, “Oh, it’s okay - he’s friendly.” Yes, of course - and I can tell that easily when the thing’s running at me. Tell you what: if you want to run your dog off-leash and assure me “it’s okay” because he’s “friendly”, then have the word “friendly” branded onto his forehead, so that I can tell. Otherwise, keep your dog from charging at me, darnit. (And if your “friendly” dog charges me and you proceed to tell me that, sure, there are laws about leashes, but nobody really follows them, and why am I so upset - the dog’s friendly, really!, then I will wholeheartedly endorse somebody using friendly pepper spray on your friendly dog. Especially if you’re one of those people who can’t be bothered to pick up your friendly dog’s friendly crap.) End of rant.
Overall, I’m totally in favor of creating a system of dog parks, dog runs, and clearly posted off-leash hours in various parks. This would allow dog owners to enjoy parks in their way, just as other people enjoy parks in other ways, and it would help clarify which dog owners are responsible and which dog owners need a good macing.
ps, Kelli: a dog in the hot tub? As if apartment complex hot tubs aren’t sketchy enough already…
posted by Murph on June 14th, 2007 at 12:08 pm eSeriously! Dog in the hot tub. You can’t make this shit up.
posted by Kelli on June 15th, 2007 at 12:48 am eYou can take your dog swimming at Buhr pool.
posted by Ypsidweller on June 15th, 2007 at 9:24 pm eYeah, but only one day a year.
posted by LittleB on June 15th, 2007 at 9:47 pm eMill pond park in saline is fun for swimming, though your dogs smell like ass when they dry and especially in the heat.
Again, its a waste of gas depending on where you live. But the swimming dogs seem to love it.
posted by christina on June 16th, 2007 at 12:34 pm eAnd that day of year is after the pool is closed to people and before it’s presumably drained.
posted by Kelli on June 16th, 2007 at 10:05 pm eWhere does that money go? If it helps clean the Buhr pool I am cool with that. In St. Louis, the dog swim after the pool closed was so sucessful, that it paid to help clean the pool and put in a light so the dog park could stay open a little longer in the darkest hours of winter.
posted by christina on June 17th, 2007 at 2:06 pm eYou know, I never thought Saline was particularly progressive compared to Ann Arbor, but now we’ve got two dog parks (one with water access, though it is the stinky Saline River). Maybe this is why I’ve never been charged by an off-leash dog at Mill Pond park - unlike Leslie Park, where we used to walk our dog regularly. Speaking of under-used parks with lots of room to spare.
posted by Sandy D. on June 17th, 2007 at 3:48 pm edear readers,
posted by paddling swim dude in a saline solution on July 5th, 2007 at 12:55 pm eplease stay tuned for publication of my upcoming chapbook meditation, “swimming with the dogs,” available by art fair week at incense and trinket shops all around you. and, to show a personal sensitivity toward the concerns some of you have shared about visiting off leash parks, i generously plan to offer you this small tome without charging.
I suggest that if you do not like living in a town without a dog park, move or drive to Saline or some place where the canine mafia runs the show. It would be cruel as the owner of a dog that needs to run around to knowingly and willfully live in a town with out a dog park.
Ann Arbor has tons of parks where you can take your dog for a walk. Be honest, you all just want a place where you can leave their s*** without picking it up and where you can let your pooches run around without the concern of being ticketed. Can’t say I blame you; not sure I want to pay for it.
Let me see if I get this straight. Municipal services are being cut back, police officers are being laid off, the library is struggling for money, seniors and the poor lack affordable housing, and you folks are clamoring to open up a dog park. Unfrickinbelievable.
posted by Erik the Red on July 9th, 2007 at 12:39 am eThis is a McSweeney’s chew toy for the erudite canine who is free to experience everyday life in off-leash resplendence….
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/lists/8NeahmiahScudder.html
posted by Indigo the dingo on July 10th, 2007 at 12:31 pm e