| Author | Message | ||
     Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 4610 Registered: 1-2003  |
I met with Art Gartenlaub last night. We'd like to have a fence-in dog park built for the town. This is a space that is much narrower than it is long, but it's adequate. A few years ago, the grass area behind the Maplewood swimming pool parking lot on Boyden Ave was designated as a dog area. However, there is a law in Maplewood that forbids dogs to be off-leash. Of course, we expect many dog owners will feel, as we do, that a fenced-in area that allows dogs to be off-leash would be a good thing. So we will propose to build it at that site. We believe we can raise the funds ourselves, without asking the township for money. We will, of course, need their cooperation. Art's estimate is that it will take $1200 to $1500 to build it. We would use snow fencing for the two ends and the side facing the parking lot. There is already a fence separating the grassy space and Winchester Gardens. If I remember correctly, Art's proposal was to have three areas: two large areas for large dogs and one smaller area for small dogs. The large dog areas would be used alternately, to give ripped up grass time to recover and rebuild. Art also proposed having a leanto and a fireplace to make the place more hospitable to the people. Those sound nice, but I'd be happy if we did without those initially. Art believes he can get some funding from the Rotary Club. I believe we can also get money from those who choose to be charter members. If we need to raise, say, $1,000, it could come in the form of $100 from ten people. I would surely be good for $100, and I suspect so would nine other people. We believe annual membership might be adequate to maintain the park. Maybe it would be on the order of $10 a year. We haven't decided if we'd like to restrict use to members. My gut feeling is to let it be as open as possible at first. If the privileges are abused, we can become more restrictive. With that said, I envision it being open to people who live anywhere, not just Maplewood. If you're interested in helping, please indicate it here or email me or phone me. You can find my phone number at http://www.anywho.com. My email address is noglider@pobox.com. We plan to write a proposal and bring it to a township meeting soon. One issue will be insurance. The township may have to purchase a rider on its insurance policy. It would seem to me that it's easy enough to hold dog owners responsible for anything wrong that dogs do, but now I understand that it would be necessary because the dog park would be an acknowledgement of a violation of the existing law. And having the rider might be easier and quicker and cheaper than changing the law to have an exception for the dog park. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1309 Registered: 1-2003  |
Tom, Livingston has a great dog park that IMHO should be the model to follow. Two areas, one for any dog, large or small, and one only for small. They are filled with wood chips which absorb odor and are easier to scoop the poop fully, doesn't turn to mud in the rain, and doesn't need mowing or maintenance. There is a bench or two and a water fountain for the dogs which is more important than a fireplace (I would be a little hesitant to just allow anyone to start fires) or leanto. The place also has some cool things like fireplugs and lighting. To use it you need to have a permit from the town which I believe costs about $150/yr and I believe its per family, not per dog. To do it right would cost well more than $1000. It needs to be done safely and correctly. But I think raising the amount would be pretty easy. The issue would be the Town's permission to use the space, and a variance to allow a fence higher than 4 feet (5 feet would probably be great). And you need a double entry gate. I would have to disagree with you re: open use. The best runs in the city are members only runs... its not an elitist thing, but it makes it possible to eject problem dogs and membership requirements can and should include licenses and up to date vaccines, and possibly even a homeowners insurance policy in case your dog mauls another dog or god forbid bites a person. I'm not a member of the Livingston run, but I've used it several times, I realize that I could get a ticket if I'm caught. No one is there enforcing membership at the gate, but it certainly gives members empowerment to ask a problem owner if they are members and to ask them to leave if they aren't. With that said, anyone should be allowed to be a member, not just maplewoodians, but they should have to become a member, maybe there could be a non-resident price slightly higher than the resident fee (since residents support the land through taxes). The ideal way to raise the funds would be for the town to offer it as an option when they send out the yearly license mailing. A kind of check here for a dog run permit and add $120 (which is 10/month... seems pretty reasonable for upkeep and insurance) | ||
| eliz Citizen Username: Eliz Post Number: 891 Registered: 5-2001 |
I agree with Michael on a few things - membership only - perhaps sell keys (and change the lock annually) for residents only. Your dog would have to be registered and you would have to show evidence of rabies vaccination. I would also propose wood chips i/o of grass since mud is a huge issue at Echo Lake for any dogs with a coat. I would be willing to contribute $100 to start it off (as long as you are collecting after Christmas!). | ||
| Joan Citizen Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 4395 Registered: 5-2001 |
This was a huge topic of conversation a few years ago. Here are just a few of the problems identified at that time: 1. The use of public land for what would amount to a private use - fenced in area, open to key holders only - is inappropriate. If the dog park is to be run as a private club, it should be done on private land. 2. Provision has to be made to construct, clean and maintain the dog park on a regular basis. Someone also has to be available to enforce rules agreed to by the members. This should not be the responsibility of the town for what is essentially a private facility. Nor, should limited municipal funds be used for this purpose. For the facility to be self-supporting, the cost would run much more that $10 per canine member per year. 3. The area selected needs to be large enough to meet the demands of dog owners in town who want to use the facility. It also needs to be a safe space for the dogs who utilize it The space by the pool parking lot is unlikely to meet this requirement. Successful dog parks in the area are much larger in size that the parcel under discussion. 4. Prior research indicated that by law, the town would not be able to exclude dog owners from other towns from using the dog park if it is held on public land - another argument for using a private facility. | ||
| irl Citizen Username: Irl Post Number: 90 Registered: 6-2001 |
I'd be interested in contributing to a dog area, but the "problems" do need to be addressed. I'm no expert, but the numbers do seem kind of low for construction and maintenance. Is Livingston's area on private property? If not, can't we do something similar with an annual permit? | ||
| sahm Citizen Username: Sahm Post Number: 70 Registered: 10-2001 |
i've been going to a dog park in Echo Lake Park. There is no membership requirement. It's beautiful. Lot's of fun. i would love a dog park here! | ||
| Soda Citizen Username: Soda Post Number: 2072 Registered: 5-2001  |
Now that the Animal Shelter is becoming a reality, would there be any available space on the property for such a run? Since it's a private organization, run keys could be sold which would provide membership. | ||
| Joan Citizen Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 4399 Registered: 5-2001 |
Soda: That's a great idea, space permitting. JAC also has the talented organization needed to help make such a program a success. Can anyone active with JAC speak to this proposal? | ||
| mem Citizen Username: Mem Post Number: 4323 Registered: 5-2001  |
Tom, Count me in for $100. Also, I have connections at Millstone and landscaping companies who could donate woodchips, etc. Thanks so much for the effort, you really are a good neighbor. Sunday at 1:30? | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 4621 Registered: 1-2003 |
Agreed. Soda's idea sounds excellent, in light of Joan's warnings. However, if that doesn't work out, I'd like to address Joan's concerns. I like your point number one. I am not comfortable with excluding people anyway. Why do you think the proposed parcel is inadequate? It's a function of how many dogs are there simultaneously, isn't it? We have taken our greyhound to the bocce court, and he runs back and forth on it. There's no lateral space; it's about 70 feet long and very narrow. It's OK for a quick run. The proposed parcel is unfortunately narrow, but I think it would be adequate for a certain number of dogs. Why don't you? I realize you are experienced at municipal administration and have a lot of insight into these matters. I hope you're just showing us the hurdles ahead of us and not trying to rain our parade. Thanks, mem. And yes, we're on to meet at Echo Lake at 1:30 on Sunday. Eliz, if you're there, please introduce yourself to mem and me. We'll be very easy to spot. I have a red faun greyhound, and mem has two, of the same color. Here's a picture of Red and me. | ||
| eliz Citizen Username: Eliz Post Number: 893 Registered: 5-2001 |
I used to go to Echo Lake a lot when my dog was a puppy. But she's a Bernese Mountain dog and is now a 90lb hairy monster and I can't face bathing her after every visit. It simply gets too muddy there for me. If I had a short haired dog I would still go. As for one of Joan's points - use of public land for private fenced in area open to key holders - I'm sure a solution can be found. Is this that much different than people who paid for a tennis lesson having exclusive use of town tennis courts at specific times? Or the town pool? etc etc. I think the rec department can manage it and I don't think it's unworkable. The space you are dealing with is much smaller than Echo Lake and you are going to have to be more strict. | ||
| Joan Citizen Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 4405 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom: You are correct in stating that I am not opposed to the concept of a fenced in dog park in Maplewood but I do believe in addressing the questions and issues during the planning stage. Otherwise the result could be a facility which causes more problems than it solves. Here are a few basic questions whose answers should help determine the adequacy of the size and proportions of the site: 1. What are the dimensions of the proposed dog park site? 2. What portion of that site would be available for use by the dogs once the fencing, lean-to and other amenities you describe were installed? 3. What is the estimated number of dogs likely to be using the site? How many of them might want to use the site at the same time? 4. How many dogs could comfortably use the proposed facility at one time? If the maximum number of dogs were in the park at one time, how much space per dog would there be for them to run around? 5. What would be the hours/days of operation of the dog park? 6. What mechanism would be used to determine which dogs got to use the dog park during a given time slot if the demand exceeded the supply? 7. What flexibility would there be if a dog wanted to use the facility during a different time slot? 8. What would be the duration of each time slot needed to accomodate all of the dogs who wanted to participate within the time frame they and their adult companions were available to do so? 9. Would this be a year round facility? Could it operate when the pool was open? | ||
| Joan Citizen Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 4406 Registered: 5-2001 |
Eliz: I think the allocation of Greenhouse space and the sale of parking permits by the train station would be better examples of existing uses of public land which approximate the kind of mechanism that would be needed to allocate space in a proposed dog park. Not everyone in town is an avid gardener and not everyone in town is a dog owner who would want to participate in a fenced in dog park. Spaces in the greenhouse are leased to the public a season at a time, first come, first served, and initially the space available per gardener is very limited, additional space per person is available only if the total demand is less than the available space. Due to the limited number of available spaces, it is not unreasonable to assume that there are years in which prospective greenhouse members are turned away for lack of space. Some years, the atmosphere at sign up reminds me of the old land rushes held out west. Under the parking permit model, just about everyone who is eligible and applies is given the opportunity to purchase a parking permit but having that permit does not guarantee a parking spot right next to the train station. Those are occupied strictly on a first come, first parked basis. You may still be able to park your car, but if you are one of the later arrivals, you may find yourself parked a half mile from the station. In both models, the demand exceeds the supply of available space. In the first model, membership is determined at the start of the season and late comers never get a chance to participate. In the second model anyone can join but not everyone can use the space they want when they want to do so. | ||
| sac Citizen Username: Sac Post Number: 1679 Registered: 5-2001 |
I would expect the dog run to follow the parking permit model as opposed to the greenhouse model, wouldn't you? | ||
| Dego Diva Citizen Username: Fmingione Post Number: 159 Registered: 12-2003 |
Tom, thanks very much for pioneering this effort! It sounds like others have tried to make a go of it before, and for whatever reasons, didn't succeed. So I think this open dialogue of potential problems is very valuable - we have to identify the obstacles in order to overcome them. Obviously, we're not the first town to be faced with this challenge. Perhaps it would be useful to do some research on how neighboring towns resolved these issues in order to develop and maintain dog runs. Surely, there has to be "someone in charge" of the dog run in each town - maybe it would be useful to meet with those people and pick their brains? I am more than happy to volunteer to talk to some offials from other towns, but let's have a plan of action first. You can also count me in for a charter donation of finances and time. Sorry I'm sorry I'll miss you AGAIN at the dog run. I'm off to run another conference in DC tomorrow, but my husband might bring Leo. | ||
| AlleyGater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 6 Registered: 10-2004 |
I haven't seen the parcel of land that is allocated, but I have used small dog runs in Hoboken and Manhattan, and none of them have any serious problems. Do they get full up? Sure sometimes, maybe at peak hours. But I have never seen a doggy pile up that caused serious issue. If a dog owner is afraid that there are too many dogs, they don't have to use the park. As for legality, I don't understand why we aren't pushing to get a variance to allow for dogs off leash in the designated dog run(s). And for that matter, creating legislation stating that ANY dog incidents within the dog run is the owner's responsibility, and the township has no liability. Who cares how long it takes to push through legislation, let's get started for the future. As for what we need to start, well let's just start. Let's take donations, let's start a group of people who want to meet regularly and get the ball rolling. Let's get the fencing in, and start using the area. As for other issues, let's deal with them as they come up. For me, I am content with the Echo Lake model. KISS: Keep it simple stupid. A fence, and grass, open all the time, to anyone. Once we start charging and setting up hours, and being exclusive, well it just gets bad. Like a country club. Echo Lake isn't perfect, but there is a community of people who love their dogs and chip in. The place isn't glamorous, but it seems to work. And it's clean...enough for dogs anyway. We wash our dog after he goes there. All we gotta do is each do our own little bit. | ||
| ajc Citizen Username: Ajc Post Number: 3298 Registered: 9-2001 |
"Let's get the fencing in, and start using the area." ...exactly! Go for it. The area has been in use for years, and I believe it was already approved for use as an OTL area. All that's missing is some snow fence and a few small gates. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 4631 Registered: 1-2003 |
Joan, I think an attempt to answer all those questions completely would thwart the effort. I thought about the "how many dogs" question and came up with the notion that there ought to be two square feet per pound of dog. And we could weigh the dogs as they enter and exit and keep a running tally. Or, more likely, when it gets crowded, then people will choose not to enter, the same way they let an elevator or crowded subway pass until the next one comes along. I think some of the questions are good, but if they are aimed at tearing down the effort, I don't appreciate them. Sorry if I'm reading you wrong. | ||
| luv2cruise Citizen Username: Luv2cruise Post Number: 303 Registered: 12-2002 |
This town is going to the dogs!  | ||
| AlleyGater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 8 Registered: 10-2004 |
On December 4, 2004, Joan wrote: > You are correct in stating that I am not > opposed to the concept of a fenced in dog > park in Maplewood.... I suppose I can at least see where Tom is coming from by questioning Joan's motives, sorry to say. Well I guess we can all be glad to see that she has changed her opinion from September 5, 2001. We certainly could use all the support we can get. Posted by Joancrystal from this thread: > Unlike you, I am not in favor of a > municipal dog run. I would much rather see > the town enforce the existing leash law. |
