Dog park update
Roaming Paws Advocates, the guys pushing for a Grand Forks dog park, says volunteers have gathered 1,146 signatures, maybe more. Nancy Joyner, who's the de facto group spokeswoman, says the group is about ready to bring their petition to the City Council.
She did mention, though, that some of the signatures came from East Grand Forks and in other neighboring cities. I sure hope the Roaming Paws people realize that the signatures of Grand Forks residents are the ones that really count when you lobby the council.
She did mention, though, that some of the signatures came from East Grand Forks and in other neighboring cities. I sure hope the Roaming Paws people realize that the signatures of Grand Forks residents are the ones that really count when you lobby the council.
posted by Tu-Uyen at 10:31 PM
13 Comments:
When they showed the petition on WDAZ the other night, I could see addresses from the base, too.
I can't imagine that the city council is going to be very interested in a "Grand Forks" petition that includes many, many names of people who don't live in Grand Forks.
The city council doesn't seem to be that enamored with any kind of petition for that matter. They weren't exactly very excited about or interested in that petition the anti-casino group put together a while back.
The casino thing was a different matter. Some council members told me the casino proponents used scare tactics and exaggeration to get the signatures. That turned off the council pretty quick.
The dog park issue isn't about perceived threats but funding, which could be resolved if dog owners do some fundraising and agree to some license fee.
I didn't see proponents of neighborhood splash parks doing much fundraising, and these were placed, or are going to be placed, in prime park locations.
Why should proponents of a dog park, which would be placed behind the dike in currently unused park space, be required to raise money? It just makes no sense.
Why should proponents of a dog park, which would be placed behind the dike in currently unused park space, be required to raise money?
I may be wrong, but I believe the proposal for a greenway dog park near downtown is basically dead.
I didn't see proponents of neighborhood splash parks doing much fundraising, and these were placed, or are going to be placed, in prime park locations.
I think the comparison between a dog park and splash parks is inherently flawed. It was the park district's decision to build splash parks, not a group of citizens. In contrast, a group of quite vocal dog owners is the big push behind a dog park.
Whereas there is NOT any need to do the same for a few poofoo dog owners.
I think you guys have to define what a "need" is. We don't need programs for young people (outside of education) any more than we need a dog park or a park for that matter. Let's face it, these things are wants. They're strong wants but they're still wants.
Since different people have different wants, there's going to have to be some negotiation.
The question I'd ask is: Are the wants of dog owners any less important than the wants of parents?
The question I'd ask is: Are the wants of dog owners any less important than the wants of parents?
Ummmm, I think the answer would be "yes", but maybe I'm missing something...
Maybe I misphrased the question. We're talking here about trivial things. Obviously, you wouldn't fund recreation for dogs like you would for people.
Look at it from the childless dog owner's perspective. He's already paid plenty of taxes for other people's kids and probably without much complaint. Would it be too much for him to ask you to pay a little for his dog park? (No, this isn't my personal perspective. I don't own any pets.) Heck, even the disc golfers have their own park and will soon have another.
I'm not particularly pro-dog park, but I do question this belief that it's some how a special perk that dog owners have to pay for. What makes you think your perks should be free? If I want dog owners to pay for a dog park, I'd have to be prepared to pay to use the disc golf course. If you have a kid, you'd better pay to use that splash park. Where do you plan to draw the line?
I'm not sure if the city is making a profit on licenses but I can see where that money might go: Animal control to catch lost dogs and keeping track of vaccination schedules comes to mind.
You're right, it's the vet that tracks vaccinations. See this page for some info. Anyway, it's only $5! I think it was way higher in Seattle.
All dogs in Grand Forks should be licensed, but from what I've heard the current licensing levels are pathetic. Shame on dog owners who think they can have as many dogs as they want without having to properly license them! Like I've talked about at length before, why not mandate that all dogs have to be licensed and use that money to build a dog park?
Shilo, you're such a cat person!
Some dogs are like this but not the majority of dogs. My family has owned two dogs and our neighbors owned dogs. Several of my friends have dogs. I've met plenty of people with dogs (and cats, too) but have never met the dogs you describe here.
Wow, Shilo, you're feisty today. Never heard you cuss before...
tu-uyen, come on everybody's been annoyed by dogs.
Not me. People that are often around dogs know how to read them. Anyway, you're arguing that dogs should be licensed because they're annoying. That's not a policy you want government to take. People that are allergic to cats think cats are annoying.
Post a Comment
<< Home