« Muskegon Dog Run | Main | Dog Photo of the Week -- 5/19 »
May 17, 2003
Letters to the Editor
Some great letters to the Editor of The Grand Rapids Press appeared in today's paper. Check them out here or click on the extended entry below. Please note that all letters were edited by The Press.
Good job everyone! Let's keep up the good work!
Dog park a smart idea
So a dog park in the city budget is "silly" and "stupid" ("Some feel funding bite, anger at dog park plan," Press, May 3)?
Tell that to people in cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Cincinnati and Denver. In smaller cities like Madison, Wisc.; Eugene, Ore.; Sanford, Fla.; and Scottsdale, Ariz., and in many cities throughout Michigan, including Ann Arbor, Royal Oak, Howell, Northville and, soon, Saugatuck. There are hundreds of dog parks in communities across the country -- for good reason.
My husband and I moved here from Chicago four years ago. It wasn't easy to meet people or feel part of a community at first. But when we got our dog, we were told about a nearby park where people gathered with their pets.
Juliette was abused before we adopted her and was fearful of men. In the nearly two years that we've been taking her there, she's become very social and outgoing with both women and men. She's come out of her shell. And we've made a lot of friends as a result.
I've joined a book club with some women from the park. I've gotten photography tips and job leads. I've started work on a project with a designer I met there. My husband and I have gone to dinner on several occasions with people we've come to call friends. We've gotten to know many of our neighbors and have come to value this community even more.
We want parks like ours to become official. There's no public place in Grand Rapids to exercise or socialize our dogs off their leashes without worry of a ticket or a fine.
A dog park in the city budget isn't "stupid," as one critic stated -- it's a smart move for Grand Rapids. Look at how many other communities have already taken this step. It's something the city should have done long ago.
LORI HARRISON-SMITH
Grand Rapids
Dog parks reduce unwanted animals
I've been following the recent responses to The Grand Rapids Press article, "Some feel funding bite, anger at dog park plan" (May 3) and I was insulted by the Ed Riojas cartoon, which read, "Do we need more public safety officers or road improvements? No! We need a doggie park. That's what this city needs. After all, dogs are people, too, you know. . ."
As I turned the page, there was an ad for the Human Society and some of its dogs and cats that need a home. Part of the caption for Einstein, one of the dogs in the ad, read, "His owners felt they didn't have enough time to meet his energy needs."
Sounds like Einstein and his owners would have benefited from having a safe place to exercise him. It's really sad that more people in our community don't get the connection between having a safe place to exercise their dogs and the number of unwanted dogs at local animal shelters.
It is equally sad that The Press feels the need to portray the legitimate need for an off-leash dog park in such a condescending and biased manner.
GWEN O'BRIEN
Grand Rapids
Dog park has support, merit
We were disappointed with the story, "Some feel funding bite, anger at dog park plan" (Press, May 3). After several interviews with The Press -- the majority of dialogue being about our clean-up event -- we were surprised that what could have been a positive community volunteer story was turned into a negative story about a political hot button.
The event our group organized was a citywide clean-up of five major parks to show our dedication to the communities that we live in (and pay taxes in) and to show that we're responsible dog owners and good neighbors.
Dog owners use the city parks on a daily basis. However, where taxpayer money has been spent on basketball courts, tennis courts and swimming pools, none has ever been spent on our needs. Dog owners in the city pay for the use of parks just like everyone else and we deserve to have a place to safely socialize and exercise our pets.
The $25,000 budget for the dog park is just 1.25 percent of the city's $2 million capital improvement fund. Compare that to the $250,000-plus being spent at Cambridge Park. Sidewalks, bleachers and shelters are being installed in a park that sees very little usage from residents, except for the many dog owners who go there every day -- all year round.
We've worked hard to organize ourselves in an appropriate and responsible manner and to work with the city in establishing a dog park. We gathered over 2,200 signatures in support of this effort. It's hard to understand how anyone could be "surprised" about it being in the budget.
It was put into the budget because it has support and merit. It's too bad our goals were framed in such a negative manner.
DOTTIE RHODES,
spokesperson
Grand Rapids Dog Park Enthusiasts
Grand Rapids
Room in budget for dog park
I was disappointed to see that The Press, in its May 7 editorial, joined in the demonization of the idea of having places in Grand Rapids where dog owners can lawfully let their dogs chase thrown sticks and play with other dogs ("Nix proposed parade policy: GR budget shouldn't bill groups for parades, or include a dog park").
Tens of thousands of people in Grand Rapids own dogs. In order to be healthy and well-adjusted, dogs living in a city genuinely need the exercise and dog-to-dog socialization they can only lawfully and safely get in a fenced-in dog play area.
That is all that dog parks are -- fenced-in areas about the size of a softball field where we dog owners can lawfully let our dogs off their leashes to play and romp and socialize with other dogs.
These are tight budget times and no one cares about the judicious use of money more than I do, but not having a single place in this entire city where we dog owners can lawfully let our dogs exercise, play and socialize off-leash is just silly.
Let's quietly and cheaply address that long-overlooked need by putting up some simple chain-link fences around some under-used corners of some existing city parks and then move on, focusing budget angst and editorial ink on the bigger fish we need to fry.
Thousands of city dogs and their households will be better off for it.
JOHN M. ARNOLD
Grand Rapids
Posted by Gwen at May 17, 2003 11:52 AM