If "dog parks" are set aside, can there be "dog free" parks too?
Having been bitten and nipped at countless times, man's best friend is not mine, so I keep as far away as possible.
I was bitten in Lincoln Park not too long ago. I blame the airheaded owner, and I gave her a piece of my mind. Fortunately, skin was not broken. She's lucky I'm not vindictive or a lawyer.
Dog parks are set aside areas. At least in Baltimore and Manhattan. The dogs run around with oversight from the owners. They aren't "mixed use" places with other park activities. And, more importantly, they are sections of parks. Not "single use" parks.
I just read the article by Arthur Delaney in "The Hill" where he doesn't sound too keen on the idea of the Congressional Cemetery used as a dog park. Be prepared everyone, because as the cemetery becomes more of a historical destination, there's going to be a lot more noise regarding this issue. This scenario has played out and is playing out at dog parks across the country: There's a "bad" neighborhood with an even worse park. Neighborhood has interesting housing stock with potential. Young pioneers move into neighborhood, but don't feel safe and adopt dog. Dog needs to exercise, "bad" park logical place. Dogs push bad elements out of park. Park gets cared for and nurtured by newcomers. Park becomes nicer and desirable by all people in the neighborhood. Neighborhood becomes nicer and safer. More people move into the neighborhood and feel safe without a dog. Great neighborhood with a lovely park, but if we could just do something about all those dogs at the park!
Commenting by HaloScan
