[BCNnet] FYI - dog park enthusiasts in Oak Lawn

[Randi Doeker - Chicago]

Below is an editorial from the Daily Southtown supporting a dog park in Oak Lawn.  

Oak Lawn has a wildlife refuge:
http://www.olparks.com/parks%20&%20facilities/parks_wolfe_wildlife.htm

I only point this out because it sounds like the dog park proposal is very contentious in Oak Lawn
and somehow that often translate into wildlife losing ground.

And if the dog owners don't get satisfaction locally, we should not be surprised if they are not
pushing for a dog park in the FP.

Randi Doeker
Chicago

PS: The reason dog parks cost so much is because the ground must be covered in a hard surface,
otherwise the ground cover quickly becomes a muddy field. To avoid that high cost, the dog park
must be very large so the damage is not concentrated in a small area, which is how we end up with
50 acres taken from the FP.


..........................................................
'Dog park' proposal merits consideration 
Tuesday, September 20, 2005

THE ISSUE: Park commissioner in Oak Lawn wants to join national trend toward recreational areas for
pets and their owners.

WE SAY: Proposal appears to have considerable public support, and the park board ought to give this
idea an airing. 

When Mary Wallace was running for the Oak Lawn Park District board earlier this year, her No. 1
issue was a promise to open a "dog park" in the village. She's still talking about it, but her
colleagues on the park district board are, for the most part, letting her talk. 

On Sept. 12, for example, Wallace asked the board to schedule discussion of her dog park proposal
at next month's regular meeting. The board did not act, despite the fact that Wallace enlisted the
support of enough supporters to fill the board's meeting room. 

Board President Terry Vorderer said he had an "open mind" on Wallace's proposal, but he added that
the board has "a number of important issues on the table" - which sounded like a suggestion that
the dog park plan is not "important" and certainly is not a priority. 

The fact that a large number of residents turned out to support the idea suggests Vorderer and the
rest of the board ought to start taking Wallace's proposal seriously. Dog parks are becoming
increasingly popular around the country, and dog owners are organizing across the country to build
and open new ones. 

In most cases, dog parks are fairly simple: A fenced in area where dogs can run around without a
leash; access to water for pet and pet owner; a place for the owner to sit while the dog engages in
a little canine recreation; and readily available plastic bags so owners can pick up after their
pets. Some dog parks are build around a pool or adjacent to a pond. Montrose Avenue beach on
Chicago's north side has a dog park area where dogs can swim in Lake Michigan. 

A quick search of Web sites also suggests dog parks often are privately funded, but Wallace has
suggested creation of a dog park would cost the park district between $10,000 and $150,000. 
We think Wallace's idea is worth pursuing, although we're inclined to think her cost estimates are
a bit steep. Perhaps supporters of the idea could get together and conduct a fundraiser to get the
project off the ground. Maybe the park district could donate a piece of land in one of its larger
parks that could be fenced in for use by pets and their owners, with the amenities paid for by
private donations. 

In any case, when a park district meeting attracts a full room of people advocating a particular
program, we think the park commissioners should have the common sense to respond positively. We're
sure the park board has a high number of "important issues on the table," but a dog park appears to
be a quality-of-life issue the public wants some action on right away. 
The park board ought to give their pleas some serious consideration.