Help us help you
via dogparks
This month the National Recreation and Park Association's [NRPA] monthly member magazine, Parks and Recreation, features an article about how parks and recreation professionals can benefit from dogpark advocacy groups: "From Animal Advocates to Allies," by Clare Leschin-Hoar.
From Animal Advocates to Allies By Clare Leschin-HoarIf you've ever been lobbied directly by a dogpark advocacy group, then you know first hand that tenaciousness is a trait that doesn't belong only to terriers. But if you take the time to cultivate this often passionate group, you might discover that you've created a powerful ally and loyal park supporter.
The first time Terry Trueblood, director of parks and recreation for Iowa City, was approached by a resident about an off-leash area was nearly eight years ago. But the petition the resident brought forth was outlandish: boldly asking for an existing 185-acre park to be declared a leash-free zone.
"He wanted the entire park!" says Trueblood. "To just let the dogs run loose."
Not surprisingly, the city's commission said no, and the resident never returned.
After that, Trueblood continued to get the occasional call inquiring about a potential dogpark in the community, but it wasn't until a few years later, when Iowa City resident Beth Shields formed Johnson County DogPAC (DogPark Action Committee), that a true dialogue about the possibility of a dogpark began.
"This was not the first time that Iowa City tried to get a dogpark, and all the other efforts had failed," says Shields. "We knew right away that we needed to have a good relationship with Terry, our city council and city manager."
Armed with a 40-page proposal, Shields showed Trueblood and city officials that her group of nearly 250 members were willing to do the work. They formed a 501(c)(3), and showed they were serious about their fundraising efforts, bringing in approximately $200,000 in funding. They made a commitment to keep the park clean and offered feedback on park design.
"They really carried the ball," explains Trueblood. "If you can find a few good people that have this mission for this one project, they can do a lot of the work for you. I've learned a whole lot more from them than they have from me in regards to dogparks."
Dialogue and communication between the two groups can foster good relations that last beyond park design and launch too.
Randle Harwood, acting director of Parks & Community Service in Fort Worth, Texas, says his experience with the dogpark group in his community brought surprising benefits.
"We now have a great political ally in the Fort Worth Dog Association. They think we're wonderful, and in the beginning, they didn't because we said, �No, we can't help you. It's outside our core mission and we couldn't justify the funding,'" says Harwood.
But with the undisputed success of Fort Woof, the city's nearly five-acre dogpark, the relationship between the park and recreation department and dogpark group simply grew stronger.
"Now if we ask for stuff, they're right there with us. They gave us awards and a $6,000 check, and the mayor thinks we can do no wrong. That's how we survive as a parks and community service group is by the groups that support what we do, and we just added dogparks to the list," says Harwood.
William Zardus, moderator of Dog Park National News, an Internet newsgroup, says reaching out to your local dogpark group is not only smart, but will help you avoid costly mistakes if you're in the park design stage, and will help reduce incidents at your park once it's opened.
Having a known user group also provides valuable, real-use input.
"If you're only hearing from people who have complaints, [without a dogpark group] you don't have any way to determine if their complaints are legitimate, especially if a parks person isn't visiting the park on a regular basis," explains Zardus. "It's good to have a liaison ... some sort of representative that knows what's going on there."
So far, a liaison model is also working well for a park in San Diego. Although Robin Kaufman isn't part of a traditional dogpark group, she's been instrumental in launching a new two-acre off-leash park in the RanchoBernardo section of San Diego, Calif., which took five and half years to bring forth, and cost more than $700,000, which was raised through state and federal park bonds and private funds.
Opened in July 2005, Rancho Bernardo doesn't have a typical dogpark user group to call on, but Kaufman, a volunteer with the Rancho Bernardo Recreation Council, holds the title of official dogpark liaison, and works closely with the city's park and recreation department to keep the offleash area running smoothly.
"I'm the go-between between the public, who uses the dogpark, and the recreation council. I answer questions and concerns the public might have, and if needed, I'll bring issues forth to the staff for discussion," says Kaufman, who spends time at the dogpark daily.
While relations between user groups and city officials can become more strained in urban areas where land is at a premium, and options for designated space for dog runs far more limited, there's still room for cooperation between the two groups.
In densely populated Cambridge, Mass., user groups and city officials have come up with a shared space solution, while the city works to identify possible future designated off-leash areas. Currently, Cambridge offers offleash areas during designated hours�typically early morning and evening�in already existing parks.
"It's challenging," says Stuart Dash, director of community planning for Cambridge. "We talk with the dog owners about what they're interested in, and in turn, they're informed by looking at other cities and what others have done.
"So we work slowly and methodically to walk through the issues, trying to carefully consider what the options are, and to try and solve them, but each open space has its own characteristics and unique qualities. It's hard to do an across-the-board solution."
In other communities, it's funding, rather than space that can delay park openings, sometimes straining relationships, but here again, is opportunity for the two groups to work together.
After nearly four years of fundraising, oficials in Arlington, Texas, hope to open their city's first dogpark in the fall of 2006.
"As for the group we work with, it's been up and down. They're frustrated with the length of time it's been," says Gordon Robertson, parks planning manager for the City of Arlington. "And they've been right all along to advocate for a dogpark, but it's taken awhile to educate politicians and even our own department."
Since 2003, Robertson's department has been working closely with the local dogpark group, RUFF (Responsible Unleashed Fun for Fido) jointly working on fundraising efforts, which turned out to be more difficult than expected.
While a broad base of small donation amounts ($25, $50 and $100) flowed in, there wasn't a single source for a large donation, which contributed to slowing the park's construction. But despite the slight strain the delay put on the relationship between the two groups, there was a surprise benefit to having a close relationship with RUFF.
City officials had made it clear that a dogpark would be welcomed, but that tax dollars were not to be used, rather, it should be funded privately. But what Robertson says he didn't realize was that having a citizens group advocate caught the ear of the park board and the city council.
"The parks department advocating for a dogpark is much more of an uphill battle than if you have a long list of citizens that show up at meetings and will call board members," says Robertson. "That's much more effective. They educated the council on dogparks and the need for this park."
So the next time a dogpark group comes scratching at your door, instead of turning them away, work with them to create a viable solution. Your park and recreation department will do better to have a pit bull on its side, rather than a terrier against it.
Alderman at Large Bruce M. Desmond
Alderman at Large Denise Provost
Alderman at Large Dennis M. Sullivan
Alderman at Large William A. White Jr.
Ward 1 - Wiliam M. Roche
Ward 4 - Walter F. Pero