Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 3 comments | Add your own | iPod friendly | Bookmark this Facebook bookmark del.icio.us bookmark StumbleUpon bookmark Digg bookmark What is this?

Debate on dog park goes on

Published Friday, October 10, 2008

Resistance to locating a public dog park in southwest Austin has surfaced.

At Monday night’s regular meeting of the Austin City Council, Linda Grover, housing director for St. Mark’s Lutheran Home Apartments, read a letter to the Council Members expressing concerns.

According to Grover, St. Mark’s apartment-dwellers already see pet owners exercise their animals in the vacant lot north of the facility and “They don’t clean up after their dogs.”

The city’s Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department has scaled back plans for a dog park in the area between the city’s wastewater treatment plant at St. Mark’s Lutheran Home. It is now a two-acre fenced site divided for large and small animals. The site was moved to the southwest area from the Northeast Industrial Park where it was originally scheduled to be located.

Dog-owners have argued before the Park Board that they need a dog park to exercise their animals and to allow them to socialize with other pets. Having a dog park would also relieve the problem of dog-owners using public areas such as parks and neighborhood lots for exercising their animals. An informal organization of dog-owners has pledged to monitor the behavior of pets and their owners at the proposed new facility and to raise money to defray expenses estimated at $10,000 or more. After hearing Grover’s complaints, Second Ward Council Member, Dick Pacholl, agreed. “Cleaning up after the dogs will be a problem,” he said.

Austin Mayor Tom Stiehm, who supports the dog park idea, said he has visited a dog park at Rochester and believes such a facility can be property monitored and maintained in Austin with dog owners’ assistance.

Ray Kolb, who lives on 12th Avenue Southwest, is a critic of the proposed southwest location of the dog park from its inception and was blunt in his remarks to the Council Members Monday night.

“I’ve watched dogs (expletive deleted) in that vacant lot, and nobody ever cleans it up,” Kolb said.

He also said he has expressed his concerns to the mayor in a letter.

Kolb said the survey the PRF Department has relied upon to support its recommendation to the City Council for the dog park was “inadequate,” because, the citizen observed, “not everybody was home when they were contacted.”

At it’s most recent regular meeting, the Park Board voted unanimously to locate the dog park at the southwest site.

The motion came with stipulations that it would be strictly monitored and the facility and its location would be evaluated after a two-year trial.

The City Council has yet to consider the recommendation.

Dogs honored

On the same night, the Council Members heard the dog park criticisms, two canine members of the Austin Police Department were honored.

Lt. Matt Holten and Ghost finished fifth in the 2008 National Police Canine Association’s competitions for canines and their partners.

Officer Eric Blust and his canine partner, Bosco, finished sixth.

Holten is a veteran APD canine officer having worked with four dogs in his career.

Blust has worked with a single canine partner for two years.

Ghost and Bosco are brothers from a litter fathered by Tazer, the NPCA top-finishing partner of Sgt. Jeff Ellis of the Mower County Sheriff’s Office.

According to Holten, the trio of canines from the APD and MCSO were among more than 100 dogs, competing at Raleigh, N.C.

The APD Belgian Malamute breed dogs are cross-trained for patrol duties as well as narcotics detection.

The city presented the handlers and their canine partners with certificates of congratulations and appreciation for placing so high among the NPCA competitors.


WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?

Bookmark and Share


Comments

Posted by geroanoke (anonymous) on October 10, 2008 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just like the leaders of Austin to worry about a stupid dog park. Now that's something the taxpayers money should be used to build and maintain.

Posted by 3sowcow (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dog park or no, come on citizens of Austin; growth & development in the community is a GOOD thing! Why such a defeatist attitude about everything?

Posted by hometowngirl (anonymous) on October 11, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I feel compelled to comment as this issue is easily resolved and requires no debate. I reside outside of Austin now and live very near a dog park. First of all, there must be an annual users fee /permit (e.g. $50/year). This fee is used towards park improvements and supplies (e.g. plastic bags for dog waste & garbage cans). All park users must posses a permit (displayed on windshield/in user's possession) with animal control monitoring the user's compliance. Failure to purchase a permit results in a hefty fine (e.g. $85). The permit holders agree to pick up after their dogs and closely monitor their behaviors. Dogs that are not spayed/neutered or are in heat are not allowed in the park. All dogs with aggressive behaviors are not allowed in the park. All dogs must be current on vaccinations. A phone number to animal control is posted in a visible location and all violators are immediately reported. A park board/committee should be established to monitor, maintain and improve the park. These are just a few ideas to have a well-managed park. My dog park hosts activities such as annual K-9 demonstrations, educational pet seminars, Halloween costume parties, and quarterly clean-up days. The animals are extremely well behaved with only occasional altercations. When an altercation does occur, the dogs are quickly separated and disciplined. The park is extremely clean because people are responsible about picking up after their dogs. With plastic bags and garbage cans placed strategically around the park, compliance is not a problem. When someone does not comply, he/she is respectfully reminded by another park user of the park rules or, for more serious infractions, reported to animal control. The park provides a social outlet not only for the pets, but the owners and the atmosphere is extremely friendly and relaxed. It really is a win-win situation for everyone as a dog who has exhausted himself at the park is not disrupting the neighborhood and is healthier, both physically and emotionally. In conclusion, those who are against having a dog park in Austin will quickly change their minds simply by visiting one. The advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages.

Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)

(Requires free registration.)

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:



advanced search

© 2010 Austin Daily Herald, Inc. All rights reserved.
A Boone Newspapers Inc. publication.

Contact us | Privacy Policy