Big Woof


So now Hizzoner wants $20 grand to enclose part of Ottawa Park as a dog park?

Couple questions -

Do we really need this?
Cant you already take your dog to any of the metroparks, or have I been breaking the law all this time?
What will $20K buy us, just the fencing?
What extra maintenance will be needed? How much will that cost?
Will visitors to this area be allowed to let their dogs run off leash?
What about safety if the above is true?
Who's responsible for picking up dogshit?
How far are we in the hole when he's looking to build a park for dogs?

No votes yet

Sure, you can take your dog to one of the existing Metroparks and keep them on a leash at all times.

At a real "dog park" there is a dedicated area where owners can take their dogs and let them run off leash.

When I moved to the Toledo area, I was completely surprised that there was no dog park, and I wasn't even a dog owner at the time! Every city of reasonable size I've ever lived in/visited has had a dog park, if not multiple dog parks.

I've always wondered what dog owners in Toledo do to exercise there dogs, when there's no place to run them off leash. Taking them for a walk on a leash only does so much. (I do have a dog now, but live more out in the country so I don't have to worry about the "what to do with a dog in the city?" issue.)

Although this isn't really the proper time to spend $20K on a dog park, it seems like Toledo should have had one years ago when they became prevalent in most other cities. Can't figure out why they have decided to act on the issue now? I think dog parks are a good thing for cities, but given the state of the current economy seems like it should be a low priority at the present time.

so why should my tax dollars go towards something I will never use. I am not personally against a dog park but, let the owners of the dogs pay for it. Charge them an entry or membership fee instead of using my tax dollars to fence off a portion of a park which I could no longer use and employing someone to clean up dog crap.


- Just the KAT, thinking out loud again.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

they spend that money and put in a public restroom. I don't recall seeing one over there. I think there is one in the police station, but they have port-o-poty's on the south end of the park by the ice rink. There are many parks that need a restroom, such as Walbridge etc.

Simple, really.

Distraction needed from the day in and day problems.


Wag a tail about a dog park and the rest of the problems don't seem so bad.


I have dogs, but is it even a real priority when there are some many other things that the city needs more, I would say not.


People are complaining about the crumbling infrastructure and yet a dog park is proposed or talked about.


Political slight of hand.


The Kat thinks $20K would fill just about all the potholes on his street. Oh wait...I live in District 3 South Toledo where nothing get done. DUH...what was I thinking? Well the Green and Yellow traffic islands by the new Bowsher High School look nice. Undecided 


- Just the KAT, thinking out loud again.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

Why a dog park? Why not something else? How about a boxing ring? How about beach volleyball? Oops, we've been there done that. How about a nude beach?

The point is that once the government thinks that its job is to provide entertainment for some, various people with different individual interests will be left out while everyone has to pay for it.

It's too bad the founding fathers didn't have the foresight to think that gov't would eventually get the idea that part of its job is to provide these things.. It's too bad that the founding fathers didn't say that "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of entertainment catering to the covetous desires of special interest groups."

We also need to remember: when we empower the gov't to give away those things which have been paid for using our money, gov't can also take them away while still keeping our money. So it's better not to empower gov't in the first place.

Its not a bad idea... but it is bad timing. The city has enough other issues it should be dealing with before it starts adding things like dog parks.

How do they moniter the dogs doo getting cleaned up? And what happens if a couple of dogs start to fight? (Happens a lot).

I used to frequent a dog park in the Bay Area, and I know that dog owners were responsible for cleaning up their own dog doo and also for their own dogs behavior. (Bags and receptacles were provided for them, similar to some of the bag dispenses I've seen already at Metropark.) If individual owners/dogs became problems, I believe they could be banned from the dog park. I do not recall there ever being major problems...most people seemed to understand that the parks were a privilege that could be taken away if too many people were schmucks about it.

I have friends who frequent dog parks in other cities, and as far as I know there are never major problems there either.

There's actually an unofficial/underground dog park in Sylvania (not going to reveal the location on the internet b/c I don't want to potentially spoil a good thing. lol)...the owners and dogs I encounter there do a very good job of keeping things under control.

In general, I do think a dog park would be a positive thing for the area. (It can even benefit non-dog owners who frequent the Metroparks...less likely you'll have a problem with a dog or encounter dog waste in the non-dog part of the park, as dog owners are more likely to take their pets to the dog-specific area.) Now, don't get me wrong...even though I think a dog park can be a positive thing for an area, I do not agree that this is the right time to be using tax dollars to fund one. Don't want anyone to mistake me commenting that, in general, dog parks can be a positive thing for a community with that meaning that I'm suggesting tax dollars should be used to build one now. Obviously there are bigger priorities right now.

I was talking with a friend about this and she broughts up a good point. Would this dog park be a safe place for dogs or would it be a breeding ground for diseases like parvo?

How is that handled in other cities that have dog parks?

How are you to know that the other dogs are up to date on their shots?


Who's going to clean up after the dogs because we all know that not all dog owners will clean up the mess they leave behind. The metro parks are proof of that.

City park workers are already sent running all over town willy nilly on the whims of hizzonor.

Will this open up a whole new department of city workers? Maybe the workers displaced by the automated garbage trucks will get new positions on the super pooper scooper squad?

I'm most personally familiar with the dog parks in the Bay Area, but I'm linking some info from the Cleveland area dog parks. (Figured that the Cleveland area info would be more relevant to local folks than stuff about the Bay Area, which seems to practically exist in a different universe. lol)

Here's the rules from Lakewood Dog Park in Cleveland (in addition to the rules, they have some info on the park's funding history. Perhaps Carty would want to take a look at that...seems that a private group provided a huge chunk of the funding, although some public funds may have been used too. But the private group seems to have raised funds for the bulk of it.)

park rules:

Please abide by the following Rules & Regulations

1. All dogs must be properly licensed (L.O.C. 505.04), vaccinated (505.19) and wear a collar & ID tags at all times.

2. Dog must be leashed when not inside the fenced-in area. Owners must have a leash visible at all times.

3. Owners must be in verbal control of their dogs at all times to prevent aggressive behavior.

4. Dogs must never be left unattended or out of sight.

5. Dogs who show aggression toward people or other animals must be removed immediately from the park. Dogs who exhibit a history of aggressive behavior will have their privileges revoked.

6. Owners will be responsible for all damage or injury inflicted by their dog(s).

7. Owners are required to clean up & dispose of all waste left by their dogs (L.O.C. 505.15).

8. Dogs in heat will not be allowed (L.O.C. 505.02(e)).

9. Dogs must be at least 4 months old.

10. Children under the age of 16 shall not be permitted in the park without adult supervision. It is not recommended that small children visit the inside of the park.

Failure to comply with the posted rules & regulations will result in expulsion from the park. Continued failure to comply on subsequent visits may result in permanent revocation of privileges.

P.S. This is the dog park that I used to frequent: (I suppose it has become notable in its own right since then, as the place where Laci Peterson's remains were discovered. But I frequented the park years before that.)

P.S.S. Are there any news articles or links about Carty's suggestion to implement a dog park? I haven't seen it in the news...was just curious to see if he had bothered to secure any private funding at all, or if he was just trying to propose using public funding. Seems like in the current economic climate, securing private funding (either through sponsorship or donations) would make more sense. When your city is doing well financially, a dog park can be a nice public amenity...but Toledo is obviously not in that place yet. Even though I like dog parks and would love to see one in this area (eventually), I'd think Carty was crazy if he used taxpayer dollars right now to make one.

Is there a park attendent then to check on these things? Taking someone's privileges sounds good but if someone isn't there watching how do you know that the dog/person isn't coming into park anyways?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.