Some responses to my "3-pack" post lead me to correct two misconceptions:
1. I was not claiming the mantle of hero. I am hardwired a certain way. It makes me more stupid than brave. Also, I am 10th of 12 from an impoverished urban family, this has left me with experience of many crises and with some tools to cope quickly and against big odds. I was reporting events, with the primary goal of letting people know that when I last saw them, there were dangerous dogs loose in our neighborhood. Please exercise reasonable caution. We have lots of neighbors but none to spare. 2. This event would not have been prevented with a Dog Run in Clark Park, and I am NOT an advocate for a dog run in Clark Park. I am fairly sure that the dog pack were not pets. Responsible ownership is probably not the issue with them, unless we travel back to the missed opportunity to spay-neuter the parents. Further the dogs ran past the Dog Park not toward Clark Park when they left the vicinity of the school. Further documenting that the current Dog Park is an accessible walking distance for anyone using Clark Park. If it requires 5 more minutes of walking time, so.... isn't the point to "exercise" the dogs? Please be aware that I continue to be against a dog park in Clark Park. I am also against expanding the Basketball courts in Clark Park. I believe the highest and best use of Clark Park requires sufficient periods of silence for peaceful refreshment of our spirits. And I know there are other dog runs, a dog park, rec centers and gyms within walking distance, plus most dog-owners have access to private yards. So why duplicate services to the detriment of one of our nicest assets? I am not against responsible (leashed) walking of dogs in Clark Park. I agree that the presence of dog walkers is a boon. But I am against creating an attractive nuisance which will be a source of almost constant noise and smell, despite attempts to paint a prettier face upon it. People do not pick up urine and 6-month-old mulch would reek. Some of the dogs being walked to the enclosure will void before entering it. There is a Dog Park on the 4700 block of Chester and I believe use of that Dog Park would increase if Leash Laws were enforced. As its use increases, the "society" that some Dog Walkers enjoy could morph into some new and perhaps better forms. For one thing, the Dog Park is already properly fenced so unaccompanied dogs would not have the easy access they now have at the Bowl. For another, it is already equipped with tools for training and entertaining dogs. I think it is already larger than the proposed space, and for a modest sum, all users would have the comfort of knowing that they are insured for the actions of their own dogs and those of others. I know a lot of work has gone into spinning out solutions to the "dog problem" but, I think many have forgotten the unattended consequences of a Dog Park upon Clark Park or upon the wheel chair bound neighbors of the IHM school. The area in question is currently home to trees and lilacs, plants that probably won't survive more concentrated urine baths. Male dogs will lift their legs on the fences, sprinkling the IHM grounds and the proposed native plantings. Barking dogs will disturb the school and probably some of our Baltimore Avenue neighbors and folks who use the park for Chess or reading. And, such an attractive nuisance, might invite more dog-owners and may end up increasing the number of those who defy the laws regarding poop pick up and leash control, even if just within current statistical percentages. The small path that leads to the intersection of 44th and Baltimore is currently traveled by kids on trikes, USP students and many others. It is one of the main gateways to the park for neighborhood residents. The density of actual park users to scarcity of public access makes this the single most densely traveled access point. People (and dogs) do not need to increase in congestion at this point. Hopefully Clark Park will always have some dogs on leashes plus squirrels and birds to give the IHM (and other) kids a thrill, but I know I would be driven nuts if a dog run was placed near my home and so I can not be party to inflicting one upon my Baltimore Avenue neighbors nor the already disadvantaged children at the IHM school. People with children take on the responsibility of finding day care and baby sitters and chauffeuring their kids to schools and activities. Young children are a lot more difficult to dress and transport than are dogs. So what if 47xx and Chester is a tiny bit less convenient. Pet ownership, like child rearing, comes with responsibilities. If a pet owner is not prepared to pay for shots, neutering and license; to pickup dog shit; or properly exercise the pet, than guppies, not dogs should be their pet of choice. I am tired of whiners who require accommodation, in a form that would take away from higher and better uses of our Clark Park. What FODP call "semi-isolated", I call quiet (at times almost serene). I have both pets and dogs. My kids and my pets are fit. I am a fat, almost 50 year old woman, but I make the effort to make exercise available to our children and our pets. Dog ownership is a licensed privilege, not an automatic right. Responsible ownership includes that public exercise be on a leash. So, please don't confuse my anger at irresponsible owners as an endorsement of contributing to the ruin of our oasis in Clark Park. Liz ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
