sweetmilk on 8/21/2008 10:54:33 AM wrote:
What county do you live in that allows "free running"?
|
metalskull on 8/15/2008 10:41:31 AM wrote:
All i have to say is I'm glad i live in the country. Who in there right mind would want to live in a stinking City anyway.? not me, my dogs have free running.
|
DiamondDave on 7/18/2008 12:08:31 PM wrote:
This quote from today's RT is the smartest thing that's been said yet on the dog park:
"Seth Marlow said his fellow neighborhood residents should remember 'this is a city issue, not an Old Southwest issue.'"
Residents of Old Southwest should be delighted to have more use in their local park. Lack of use in a park means two things--crime and neglect. Highland Park could become a crown jewel in the parks system if more people had a reason to use it.
Please, Old Southwest residents, don't turn this into a NIMBY issue. It's a city park for all city residents to enjoy.
|
scandals on 4/7/2008 2:24:47 PM wrote:
The money goes to pay for the Animal control workers (Dog Catchers). A lot of people don't take care of there pets and don't consider the rest of society when it comes to there pets.
I am an animal lover. I just hate to see kids faces ruined by dogs that are "friendly".
|
ccdogpark on 3/15/2008 10:03:33 PM wrote:
Google for:
Dogpark-National-News
.....
Canine-Swim-Events-USA
-- Doggy Fundraising events
The group above is active primarily in Aug & Sep when
seasonal pools are closing and these events are
occuring.
Google for
CooperRiverDogPark-CamdenCounty-NJ
Please consider yahoo groups for group messaging in
support of this park but look at my groups for ideas
before you begin.
Please add a link for the Roanoke parks department or
tell me if they have a municipal pool.
Bill Zardus
Camden County NJ .....
ccdogpark at yahoo.com
.....
Google for: Dogpark-National-News
|
Italianboy921 on 9/8/2007 10:02:07 PM wrote:
I think the idea of dog parks in Roanoke are a great idea, however they need better planning to assure not only saftey of the dogs but saftey of the community as well. There is no fencing or anything to prohibit our little fury friends from running into a very busy street like Brambleton Ave. I will not bring my dog over there, not because he is not properly trained but simply because I love my dog enough not to take a risk of him running after something that catches his eye and all the training in the world can not stop a dog on a mission.
|
frances5 on 8/9/2007 2:25:08 PM wrote:
Anybody know this dog? Black lab mix, male, found at Carvin's Cove. Older dog (white hair in the muzzle). Very friendly toward people. Was taken to the Roanoke Animal Shelter on Thursday, August 9. I can't take it. If you know this dog or the owner, could you let the person know to go pick up the animal. I know he is one among a number of homeless animals, but he is truly special, would make a great companion for someone.
|
gasp4gh on 7/28/2007 4:31:58 PM wrote:
eileen13
No apology needed. Perhaps once the dogpark gets more members the price could go down and allow more to participate. It seems that there are several parks in several locations that charge lower fees and do a great job of maintaining the property. I also like your idea of using our tag fees to help in supporting a park in Roanoke. I volunteer with greyhound rescue and every animal deserves a chance to be placed in a carrying and loving home. Peace
|
eileen13 on 7/28/2007 11:47:26 AM wrote:
animilvr
Thanks for noticing that part. I do wonder where the money from our dog fees goes? The money collected should be enough to build a fence, and since the fee is yearly that should be a decent amount to help with keeping it up.
|
eileen13 on 7/28/2007 11:34:45 AM wrote:
gasp4gh
I apologize, my comment about purebreds was probably not appropriate. My point was that while some people can afford to spend a lot of money on purebred dogs, and thus probably private dog parks, many cannot. We got our puppy from the Humane Society, and the reasons for doing so went far beyond the cost factor.
I wouldn't be opposed to paying a small fee for yearly access (although the dog tags should be considered in this) There is a large public dog park in Verona, Wisconsin (just outside Madison--a city comparable to Roanoke in size). It is about $25 a year for your dog to go there. It is well maintained and they even provide waste bags and garbage cans. People seem to do a good job of cleaning up after their dogs.
|
animallvr on 7/28/2007 10:57:06 AM wrote:
In response to Eileen.
You mentioned fees paid by City residents for dog tags. I'd like to address and expand upon that.
I've lived in Roanoke City for years and I'm puzzled by how the city treats dog owners vs. cat owners. Dogs are required to be leashed and tagged, and the city will not provide a decent, fenced dog park from those fees. However, cats can roam freely in the city, no tags are required, and they are not picked up by animal control as would a roaming dog.
If cats are allowed to roam free in the city it seems only fair that dog-owners (who are taxed) should be provided a safe and secure dog park so their pets can have the same opportunity to run and play. Until this happens, I'll continue to walk my dog on a leash.
|
gasp4gh on 7/28/2007 8:24:08 AM wrote:
eileen13 . you're right along with many of the other postings. A fence around the Fishburn site would indeed add some safety to the area as well as peace of mind to owners. Regarding the expenses of a private park, I can only say that its a step in the right direction. True, not everyone can afford the fees, however it does set some sort of foundation for others in the future to do something for our pets. Your comment about pure breds is not all together correct, for I have seen many pets there that are rescues for local shelters as well as pure breds. The fees help to maintain the facility and provide a clean and safe enviroment. Left on our own would not work. Look at how many DO NOT pick up after their pets in the parks.
|
eileen13 on 7/28/2007 1:35:39 AM wrote:
sickandtired
Yeah, we took our puppy there once. To be honest, we were not exactly sure where the dog park area started and ended--there were suppose to be poles or something marking it, but we never saw them. Luckily the park wasn't busy that night so we didn't bother anyone.
|
sickandtired on 7/27/2007 3:19:33 PM wrote:
Eileen, no argument that a fence should be at Fishburn if the city is going to call it a "dog park" but then we will have to hear that by fencing a section off you are taking away a portion of the park from the public. Have you taken your dog to Fishburn? I haven't, so I am not sure about the layout. But you do make a decent point for attracting young people to the area.
|
eileen13 on 7/27/2007 10:38:25 AM wrote:
You know, Roanoke is looking for ways to attract and keep young people in the area. While a dog park is certainly not a make or break deal, it is something small that would make the area more attractive to many.
Sickandtired, I have no problem with the people who want to attend/own a private dog park that has extras. A fence isn't an amenity though...it is a requirement of a dog park. If they put up a fence at Fishburn park that would be helpful. It would still not be a "real dog park" by most cities' standards, but at least people could let their dog off the leash without worrying about it running off (into traffic or elsewhere) which all dogs do regardless of how well behaved they are normally.
|
sickandtired on 7/26/2007 8:20:41 PM wrote:
Eileen, I guess that is the beauty of the free market - you don't have to pay to utilize the facility. You can use that portion of Fishburn Park that is allocated for a dog park. But if you do want to pay for something that has a few amenities, then that is available. And if you did pick up a shelter dog, that is great because far too many dogs are abandoned; these shelter dogs typically make great family pets and soon become a part of the family.
|
eileen13 on 7/26/2007 1:24:28 AM wrote:
One more thought...
It is unrealistic to expect people to pay $200-$300 a year for their dog to be able to run at a private dog park. Not everybody who owns a dog is paying for an expensive pure bred. Some of us are rescuing mutts from the Humane Society.
|
eileen13 on 7/26/2007 1:19:41 AM wrote:
Just a few thoughts on the topic:
The point of a dog park is to allow dogs to run around freely without a leash.
A fence is necessary for a successful dog park--dogs do not recognize 4 poles as a "no-no" to go beyond.
Some people cannot fence in a backyard because they are renting a house/duplex/apartment.
Dog owners pay money every year to the city to license their dogs; can't that money be used to build something that will benefit the dogs and their owners?
Final thought: Not everyone has kids, yet taxpayers pay for parks that kids play in. I'm not proposing that we start privatizing parks for humans, just that critics consider that public services do not need to always help everyone directly.
|
sickandtired on 7/17/2007 10:55:31 AM wrote:
Walker, you're absolutely right. A private business entity saw a need, invested some start-up capital, and met the need. Plus they did it by "recycling" an old golf driving range, so that should appeal to the enviros out there. Now those folks who have been clammering for a dog park need to put their money where their collective mouths have been and support it.
|
Walker on 7/17/2007 10:25:23 AM wrote:
Glad to hear someone has taken it upon themselves to provide such a place.
The GUBMINT didn't help at all? These people did it on their own?
Amazing. ;)
|
sickandtired on 7/17/2007 9:22:21 AM wrote:
Six Wags is a definite plus for the area. The safety concerns are addressed by adequate fencing, the dogs have access to water, and plenty of wide open space to run and play. Plus for a nominal extra fee you can bathe your dog at their facility with the adjacent dog wash - they provide everything but the labor to hose down Fido. Anyone with a dog owes it to the dog to drop by and see the place.
|
gasp4gh on 7/17/2007 7:58:16 AM wrote:
I would like to start a new discussion on the new dog park in Salem Six Wags Dog Park. It appears that for years people have been asking for a dog park and now that one is open, very few have signed on? Six Wags is a wonderful place to let your dogs run and play and the staff is wonderful as well. Yes, it does cost to join but that's because if you left it up to the general public, no one would pick up after the dogs and monitor their pets properly. Please go by and check it out and talk to the great folks there. If this is to work the public needs to support it and make sure it stays around, otherwise it will disappear and then we're back at square one again.
|
plumb65 on 5/24/2007 10:28:19 AM wrote:
I agree. No money should be put into this. Dog lovers (and I am one) should work together to create their own dog park, but please visit a real one first.
|
Walker on 5/24/2007 8:41:52 AM wrote:
Thanks for clarifying the situation and bringing a bit of reality back to the thread, Mr. Fishburn.
It IS important to remember WHAT the land was originally intended for. Dogs are great, for some people, but alas they are not humans with families. They are animals.
Maybe a dog-lover with some extra land will donate some for this purpose, I would support it then. As earlier stated, I don't see spending a dime of taxpayer money to CREATE (build, fence-in, etc.) a "Dog park".
|
fishburn2 on 5/23/2007 9:11:22 PM wrote:
Blair J. Fishburn donated the park for humans, not dogs, nor a public television station. As a direct descendent of B.J. Fishburn we still have the option to use the reversal clause with respect to the park.
Blair Fishburn Fulton II
|
old_curmudgeon on 5/22/2007 11:30:08 AM wrote:
Sorry, Roanoke. I just visited a REAL dog park, and it's nothing like what the city has done. Built on 49 donated acres, it was fenced, and included treed and open areas, as well as a small stream. The dogs (and their owners) loved it. Frisbee golfers and regular park goers should not have to share their space with dogs.
|
plumb65 on 5/4/2007 12:13:07 PM wrote:
A dog park should be fenced. It should not be at Fishburn Park on the frisbee golf field. I believe they were there first. Dog parks can be a great thing, but I don't think Rke is ready for one. Too many people believe their dogs are "just friendly" or "will come when I call" and then are surprised when there is a fight (because their "friendly" dog sniffed a leashed unfriendly dog) or their dog runs off to chase a squirrel. They cannot even follow the simple rules at Garst Mill Park. Leash your dog, pick up after your dog. How hard is that Roanoke?
|
antsinourpants on 3/26/2007 10:05:55 AM wrote:
I checked it out on Friday...total disappointment! A very marginal and definitely unsafely located piece of land with no fence and plenty of potential distractors to foil the safety and fun.
While I appreciate the work of Nathan (and others) who got this to happen, it's still a far cry from being "right" enough to use.
My dogs are always complimented for being well behaved and totally under control. But I have strong feelings about not alienating dogs from their sense of doghood. When I let my dogs play with others, I'm not going to harass them with a recall every 90 seconds to ruin their enjoyment.
Fence a bigger area, adhere to the rules, and have peace of mind. The wheel's already been invented. Let's use it.
|
Walker on 3/26/2007 9:43:56 AM wrote:
"Any self-respecting dog park has a fence. Look at the successful dog parks across the nation. Show me one without a fence"
Well, then let's just not have a dog park.
Unless, as "responsible owners", those who want a fence, get together and pay for it themselves.
The fence should also only fence in an area thats roughly 25% or less of the total area of Fishburn Park, as not everyone that goes to the park has a dog or wants to have a fenced in park.
Remember, a lot of people go there for frisbee golf. Sound fair?
|
roanokelibs on 3/26/2007 8:28:06 AM wrote:
In Richmond, there are lots of dog parks, and the "official" dog parks are fenced-in. While owners can do their best to keep them where they're supposed to be, dogs have no idea they're supposed to stay within the green poles. It's pretty much useless unless there's a fence put up-- if it's a large area, that will make everyone happy!
|
eli2410 on 3/26/2007 8:27:16 AM wrote:
For whomever wrote that people should just build a fence in their backyard or take their pooch to a fenced in softball field, you should probably realize that A)not everyone can afford to fence in their yard and B)it is illegal to let your dog run inside the fenced softball and soccer fields in parks. You can be fined.
|
eli2410 on 3/26/2007 8:21:48 AM wrote:
While I love the fact that we finally have a dog park and feel like it is a first step, I agree a fence is needed. I have a sight hound and they are prone to chase after anything that moves. Without a fence, there is no way I can take my dog to the park and let him off the leash to truly run free. Let's do this right and provide a fenced area for furry friends.
|
antsinourpants on 3/23/2007 4:05:20 PM wrote:
Walker:
Dogs are not robots on remote control; to know canine behavior is to know that certain (well behaved) dogs will run to greet others who are making their way down the hill. (Not good.)
Most breeds of the hound group will be inclined to look (sighthounds) or smell (scenthounds) beyond the designated area. And follow their urges to move beyond the 1/2 acre.
While one might argue that it's worked illegally at Fishburn thus far, the absence of a fence implicitly means that new dogs and owners are not as welcome.
Any self-respecting dog park has a fence. Look at the successful dog parks across the nation. Show me one without a fence.
Having a fence goes along with responsible ownership, especially so close to a busy road.
|
Walker on 3/22/2007 5:04:25 PM wrote:
kgreen-
I agree with most of your sentiments, however, I disagree with this statement.
"A fence should be the first thing to go up."
No, they most certainly should NOT fence the park in.
If dog owners want a fenced in area to let their dogs run, they can fence in their back yards. Or they can find a park that already has a fence, a softball field or something.
Fishburn is a beautiful park, it has been for years. A fence would really suck the life out of it. Plus it'd be at the taxpayers expense. No thanks.
It is the OWNER's responsibility to control the animal, no one else's.
|
kgreen on 3/22/2007 3:05:14 PM wrote:
I think this is a GREAT idea in theory. Roanoke definitely needs a place where dogs can run free and play. However, an off-leash dog area without a fence is not brilliant idea. A fence should be the first thing to go up.
While watching the news last night, I noticed that some people complained of hearing dogs barking all hours of the night. Doesn't the park have hours of operation?!
Finally, I truly believe that the dog owners who take the time to walk their dogs, take them to the pet store, etc. are responsible enough to follow the rules posted. At my apartment, I have to clean up after my dog whenever he "goes" outside. It's really not that big of a deal.
I hope this idea works out though. I would love to take my dog there.
|
sickandtired on 3/22/2007 2:22:55 PM wrote:
"Is a dog park necessary?" Why not ask whether any park is necessary? No, not necessary, but an excellent amenity to offer the people of the Roanoke valley who own dogs and who would like to have a place where the dogs can run, and do things that dogs like to do. A dog park should have been implemented a long time ago. Will it stop irresponsible dog owners from letting their animals run free in prohibited areas, or or force them to scoop up after their pets? Probably not, but it will give responsible pet owners a place to take their pooches and let them get a little exercise.
|
GeorgiaBoy on 3/22/2007 9:19:29 AM wrote:
And why would a dog park be 'necessary'?
|
Walker on 3/22/2007 8:57:40 AM wrote:
Laurie-
Maybe not such a good idea to let them run sans leash then, eh?
|
laurie1125 on 3/22/2007 8:54:37 AM wrote:
Since Fishburn Park is on Brampbleton Ave, a dog that is not on a leash may run out onto the road and get killed.
|
Walker on 3/21/2007 5:30:54 PM wrote:
Necessary? No.
I don't have a problem as long as they clean up after them.
|
