Posted March 23rd 2007

I am extremely glad to see that HRM city council is finally seeing fit to at least examine the issue of off-leash dog parks, and I am hopeful that there is a possibility that, with consultation from the public, the local situation may improve in the near future.

I did attend two of the off-leash planning sessions (St. Margaret’s Bay and Dartmouth Sportsplex). I found it useful and quite encouraging to meet with a group of others who were equally committed, one hopes, to working together to provide better recreation for dogs and people, while reducing problems between the dog-loving and dog-hating extremes. And I did find fairly big contrasts between the perceptions and needs of the two groups, suggesting that a “one-size-fits-all” approach may not work well.

I have done a lot of thinking on the subject of the accomodation of dogs in an urban setting, and off-leash dog parks in particular. To this end I would like to submit some additional ideas. One thing I have thought a lot about, especially since moving to Halifax from Vancouver, has been how little provision this city makes for animals and their owners. Though Vancouver had some issues with dogs, I found Halifax to be a virtual wasteland for canine companions.

I have been puzzled by the city’s apparent inability to see that, as long as so few areas are sanctioned for dog use, people WILL use other areas illegally – and feel justified in doing it. This can only guarantee ongoing disputes between different park users, degrading of important habitats, and spoiling areas of natural beauty. To the extent that people don’t find acceptable ways for their dogs to meet others, it will lead to more badly socialized dogs, causing more dog problems like aggression and injuries, more dogs being given up and euthanized, and an increasing intolerance between those with dogs and those without. It is all totally needless!

...I want the HRM to provide a clean, well-run community to live in, where all people take responsibility for the impact they make, and all can share in the benefits.

One positive thing that comes out of “opening up” the dog issue is that we can make “peer pressure” work for us. Dog owners become better educated and better supported by congregating with other owners, observing dogs playing naturally, and discussing issues. I have found that, at dog parks, owners often solve problems together, refer each other to people or services that can help, and act as an informal “mutual support community”. I’ve seen people help another take a dog to the vet after a nasty altercation, some who volunteer to pet sit for others, or to bring someone to the park when their car is in the shop – it can be a very cooperative and organized group. And, yes, regular dog park users do censure those who behave badly. (It is almost invariably the people who behave badly, the dogs are rarely to blame.)

I would like to suggest another way of looking at “the dog problem” that may bring more positive results. I would envision an ideal situation for dogs and people, in a Halifax context, then work through the possible blocks to seeing this become reality, research what models address these things, then examine the principles and policies - and compromises - that could most effectively and efficiently bring this vision to fruition.

Ideally, dogs need:

- a safe (i.e. enclosed) place to exercise, to really run, outdoors.
- a safe place to meet and socialize with other dogs in groups.
- areas to play in water, to dig in dirt, and to roll on grass, with things to jump over, hide behind, etc.
- access to clean water to drink, and some shelter from the elements.
- reasonable assurance that they will not be forced to come into contact with
unsocialized or aggressive animals, or with particular health risks.
- adequate supervison and protection by caring and knowledgeable humans.

(Note: Dogs do NOT need beauty, or complex ecosystems – in fact, these things will normally be ruined through steady use by dogs. Better to utilize an unused city lot than sully a pristine park for this use – the dogs don’t mind.)

The humans with the dogs need:

- central, easy and safe access, including for those with disabilities, different
cultures and languages, etc.
- adequate lighting.
- suitable, possibly heated, seating and shelter from the elements.
- an area amenable to meet and talk with others.

- basic amenities, like clean bathrooms, drinking water, maybe first aid station.
- an area for notices, and informal lost and found.
- adequate garbage disposal facilities, regularly emptied, and a supply of “poo bags”
- freedom from inappropriate or non-sympathetic park users – e.g. family picnickers, sex trade workers or drug abusers, vandals, etc.

The city needs:

- affordable existing outdoor spaces.
- areas that require little or no major maintenance (other than garbage disposal)
- minimal complaints from either users or non-users
- the least disruption possible of the environment and natural habitat
- park sustainability
- accountability from users
- park spaces for other uses, like playgrounds, sports, quiet enjoyment of beauty, day hiking, etc.
- low-cost solutions and/or acceptable ways to fund these services.

Here is my vision of the future:

Basic Set-up:

1. Every area or neighbourhood in HRM has at least one small designated off-leash dog park, so people can walk, or drive a short distance, to access.

2. Most designated parks will have no other use; they will be fenced or have other natural barriers, and will be clearly signed so non-dog lovers will not stumble into them unawares.

3. They will not be so out of the way that they can be unsafe at times, and they will have some lighting at night.

4. There will be a few benches, picnic tables, etc., and some basic shelter, where people can congregate.

5. Other amenities will be posts or bulletin boards for notices, to tack up found items, at least 1 washroom, possibly an emergency phone, SEVERAL large garbage cans, and extra bags and a drinking water source (for people, and, if possible, a natural source for dogs).

6. These local dog parks will vary in size and type – some will be smaller areas, like part of a sports field, and strictly socialization places, while some could go for kilometers, like parts of existing trails designated for off-leash walking. Our natural resources should be utilized where possible, having some in beach areas (non-swimming areas for people), some with trees, uneven terrain, a brook or spring, old parking lots or gravel pits, etc. There could be some mixed use areas, as long as they were well-labelled as such.

7. Efforts should be made, in choosing locations, to make areas easy to access for people with disabilities – visual and hearing impairments, mobility problems, seniors, etc. Not only fit, able people own dogs.

Accountability & Financial:

1. I think there should be some attempt at organizing a local user group for each park or area. This group would NOT be responsible legally or financially– very few people would commit themselves to this, I am sure – but would be in contact with a central city “dog coordinator” to communicate with issues that came up. They would also have responsibility for general upkeep of the park – not regular maintenance – and letting users know the rules, etc. They COULD decide to do more if they chose – such as fundraising for specific “extras”, holding spring clean-ups, dog fairs and education events on-site, etc. They might also make special rules for “their” park in order to deal with specific problems, if there was support from the members.

2. Just as the city deals with site maintenance, equipment upkeep, signage, leaning, etc. of sports fields and playgrounds, the city should be responsible for this in dog parks. Dog owners should not have to pay more – we are all citizerns who pay taxes, and should not be discriminated against.

3. However, the city should designate dog license fees against these expenses to ensure needs are met. Most dog owners would pay more, and be more likely to pay at all IF: a) we knew this was where the money was going b) OR we saw something else positive coming from what we paid, c) publicity and education about the rationale for license fees was available – (e.g. it gives the city statistics for providing services, it encourages paying/neutering and discourages euthanization, etc.) d) there was actual enforcement of the licensing by-laws.

4. Dog health issues could also be connected to the license, if they were bought through a veterinarian, and required a clean bill of health to get. The city could also give a price differential on age, size, having an “obedience school” or behaviour test certificate, etc. This would also encourage people to look after their dogs better. Perhaps people could pay a small fee to “join” a particular dog park, and would get another break on the license fee. This would encourage people to take specific responsibility for a community dog park – almost like co-op housing. (In general, I think “carrots” instead of “sticks” are more effective in getting people to do things.)

If the city is serious about dealing with dogs, after these public information sessions are done, it should:

1. Establish a “dog steering committee”, with some volunteers from the public, to steer the process. (I would definitely volunteer.)

2. Start with a few parks, ideally those already established – formally or informally – and work out the details, evaluate and report on them, and rework as necessary.

3. Then take over more places easily available across the HRM – where people are already going now, if possible – and where other users aren’t competing.

4. Then deal with areas that are harder to secure, multi-use areas, more environmentally sensitive locations, etc. to see if they are feasible.

BUT – dog parks aren’t all that the HRM should be doing to improve dogs’ lives in this part of NS. How about :

1. Prevent pet stores from selling pets from unlicensed and unreputable breeders (if not ban pet stores from selling at least mammals altogether).

2. Clamp down on these bad breeders – require licensing, etc.

3. Work with the province to tighten up animal laws, and penalties, giving the SPCA more powers (but also requiring more accountability.)

4. Look at making by-laws preventing landlords from not renting to dog owners (but restricting numbers of pets is reasonable.)

There are no doubt many more – things about dog fighting, backyard breeding, tail docking and ear cutting, etc. I know, “you’re just one little city” against the world! But these things affect people very deeply, and I think Halifax needs to wake up and deal with them, finally! Thank-you for looking at the dog park situation, at least. There will be a lot of very angry people if you just write all this up, and put it away without DOING anything positive! I hope you will take these comments – with all the others – seriously, and I hope that sonner rather than later we can look forward to better opportunities for exercising and socializing our dogs in HRM!

M. Lindsay

Posted March 12th 2007

Dogs are an integral part of a large, if not majority, of taxpayers in Halifax. We are willing, and in fact I do, pay for a dog licence. In return for this and our local taxes, we expect fair treatment for ourselves and our dogs. I have no interest in soccer, baseball, tennis, ice hockey and swimming and yet all of these are financially supported to a greater or lesser extent by MY tax dollars. All producing, we hope, a healthier life style to those involved. Why cannot I and my fellow dog walkers enjoy the same benefits?

Off leash areas are already in place in Point Pleasant Park and Seaview
Park. I see absolutely NO reason why that facility cannot be immediately
extended to the Shubie Trails (and other trails) with similar restrictions
to those that obtain in PPP.

Sincerely and with hopes of a quick and fair solution,

S. Jackson

Posted February 21st 2007

It has been my delight to be a dog owner for many years, most recently the ‘mom’ of a beautiful black lab. With a large breed dog it has been especially frustrating to find an area where he could run and play as dogs were meant to do. With all beaches, sports fields, trails and common areas off limits, his activity was usually restricted to your backyard and occasional drives down to Point Pleasant Park. Regrettably, Halifax appears as a very unfriendly city for our canine companions. Toronto has numerous off lead areas in each neighbourhood, and is more open to crating off leash parks and walking areas where dogs are welcome across the HRM. In my area there is nothing available except at very early hours in the winter.

The ideal would be numerous small off lead areas throughout the HRM, in conjunction with the larger areas currently available at Point Pleasant Park and Seaview Park. A beach area would be wonderful as well, especially one that is less frequented by children and bathers.

Finally, we would really have it made when there was a large enclosed area where dogs could play safely, I suspect that most serious dog owners would be willing to pay a user fee for upkeep of such a facility, clean up bags, receptacles for waste and maintenance.

I hope that HRM will consult with organizations such as the SPCA and veterinary groups to determine the healthiest and most appropriate ways to meet the needs of our canine citizens and their devoted families.

D. Ross

Posted February 21st 2007

It has recently come to my attention that the city is developing a new strategy to open more of our public spaces to off-leash dogs. I have major concerns with this initiative, and am disappointed with the inadequate public consultation which has taken place. This proposal seems to have been released very quietly, and I only found out about it at the conclusion of the 1-week consultation period. I hope it is not too late to have the following comments taken into consideration.

The information regarding this initiative that is posted on the HRM website indicates that the city believes it is offering a sound approach to this issue. I disagree with this conclusion. I feel that the strategy is weak, incomplete and inadequate. The following four points highlight my main concerns.

1. The strategy puts the interests of dog owners above other citizens, without considering the impact on other users.

The strategy shows a clear and consistent bias in favour of dogs and dog owners. It seems to be prepared in direct response to complaints from dog owners. The vague language in the section on Accessibility seems to imply that every park and green space in the city will eventually provide opportunities for roaming off-leash dogs. This must be anticipated with glee by the dog owners, but is simply unacceptable to those of us who do not appreciate being accosted by out-of-control dogs every time we go to enjoy the outdoors. Stating that dogs must always be in the full control of their owners is meaningless, because in practice this seldom occurs. Interestingly, there is no mention of parks that would be closed to all dogs, whether on-leash or off-leash. This should be a requirement, particularly in light of point 2 below.

Solution: The strategy should clearly indicate that some areas will be designated for off-leash dog use, some areas will be designated for no dogs at all, and the vast majority of our public spaces would require dogs to be on-leash so that the areas can be enjoyed by all. Off-leash areas should be fenced, as is done in Jasper, Alberta.

2. The strategy fails to consider the context of existing on-leash areas (i.e. that these areas are de-facto off-leash areas).

The strategy points out that there are only two designated off-leash areas in the city. However, it fails to point out that currently, virtually all of the parks in the city function as off-leash areas because there is no enforcement. Although I know there are many responsible pet owners, my experience suggests that the vast majority of dog owners simply ignore the signs and the rules regarding leashing of their pets. Even when I respectfully ask people to obey the rules and leash their pets in consideration of other park users, I am usually ignored or worse. Many dog owners seem to feel that their pet’s freedom is more important than the safety and experience of our children. The HRM off-leash strategy makes no attempt to address this major issue.

Solution: Clearly state that irresponsible dog owners are a significant problem, and identify a strategy to ensure that on-leash areas do not continue to be de-facto off-leash areas.

3. The strategy fails to ensure that our parks remain uncontaminated.

The strategy’s attempt to address the contamination issue is woefully inadequate. The dog strategy refers to holding organised cleanups four times per year. Are you folks kidding? In the meantime is the public expected to tolerate up to 3 months worth of stinking, rotting, disgusting dog faeces contaminating our parks? This is simply unacceptable. In my experience, one of the reasons people like off-leash areas is because there they can free themselves of the responsibility of cleaning up after their dog. I have recently even pointed out to a woman the location where her off-leash dog just deposited a massive, steaming pile of faeces, and she simply ignored me. (Note: this was in an on-leash area). Dog owners who run their dogs off-leash must bear the responsibility of cleaning up the mess in a timely manner.

Solution: Dog owner groups should be required to conduct clean-up sweeps of designated off leash areas once per day. This is the only way to ensure that our parks are not fouled by dog faeces.

4. The document proposes no enforcement strategy.

Finally, the need for consistent enforcement is barely mentioned. As mentioned above, virtually every park in the HRM is a de-facto off-leash area because there is no enforcement. The same can be said for provincial parks in HRM, such as Conrad’s Beach, which is now overrun with dogs on the loose. Almost every time I go to a park with my family, where pets are supposed to be on a leash, there are numerous off-leash dogs running out of control. I have a young daughter, and she is now fearful of dogs because she has been charged so many times by animals considerably larger than she is (she was once knocked over, and once scratched on the face). The standard response of the irresponsible dog owner in these cases is: “Don’t worry, he/she is friendly”. This moronic response is irrelevant to a small child being approached by a large rambunctious canine.

Proposing new off-leash areas before addressing the failure of existing on-leash areas is unacceptable. Until the city (and the province in provincial parks within HRM) is willing and able to enforce the on-leash rules that are currently being ignored by the vast majority of dog owners in this city, there should be no more effort put into creating official off-leash areas.

Solution: Develop a meaningful enforcement strategy for on-leash areas, off-leash areas, and areas where dogs are not permitted. The strategy must include significant penalties to ensure compliance. Unfortunately, education has proved ineffective. The cost of implementing enforcement measures should be borne fully by dog owners through increased licensing fees.

In conclusion, I am hopeful that this strategy can be re-worked to address the above concerns. The city must place more of the responsibility for this dog issue squarely on the shoulders of dog owners. First and foremost, dog owners should be expected to comply with existing rules and regulations and the city should implement meaningful enforcement measures to ensure this occurs. Only after our existing “on-leash” areas are respected by dog owners, and become places where citizens can walk without being confronted by loose and out of control dogs, should the debate shift to considering further off-leash areas.

T. Keith

Posted February 21st 2007

I listened to the discussion this morning on CBC radio regarding HRM's consultation for off leash parks. Even though I am not a dog owner I do support these parks being assigned for dog owners. At present there seems to be no control of off leash dogs or their owners in HRM. I can recall several encounters with wandering dogs within the past six months. My most recent and most frightening experience was with a rotweiller on the Bedford-Sackville Greenway a couple of months ago...I asked the owner if she would mind putting her dog on a leash. Her response was a nasty look and continued down the trail with her empty leash.

... There is only one sign at the beginning of each end of the trail to inform owners to keep their dogs on a leash. Why are there not more signs and include the cost of the fine?

The Metropoliton Park in Lower Sackville is another roaming area for dogs despite the No Dogs sign on the fence that the owner do not read. Many occasions I have witnessed dogs doing ther job on the field knowing that that evening there will be a soccer game on the field and people not aware of what is on the grass.

My last trip to Point Pleasant last Sept. in mid afternoon along the shore road was cut short as there were two large dogs running wild while their owners sat on a table. I'm sure I saw at least one sign that dogs in that area should be on a leash.

I think that for the safety and comfort of it's many citizens who do not like or are fearful of dogs that HRM should start promoting more public awareness that there are rules and consequences for this and not just a warning.

Maybe if the word got out to these many dog owners that ignore the bylaws our parks and trails would be more enjoyable for everyone. In the meantime I will walk on my treadmill or enjoy the exhaust fumes along Sackville Drive.

G. Cook

Posted February 20th 2007

HRM should consider providing a decrease of the cost of a yearly dog license for owners providing proof that their dog has passed the Canadian Kennel Club's Canine Good Neighbour examination, this is a certified test that proves that the handler and dog have a certain level of control and obedience.

The current practice of giving tickets to owners having dogs off leash in HRM parks should be suspended until proper off leash areas are available. If you
still want to appear that you are doing by-law enforcement then fine owners
that don't have a license and owners that don't clean up after their pets.
This would be proactive since it moves in the direction you want to go - to
have all pet (not just dogs) owners have licenses for their animals and use
the proceeds to pay for off leash areas.

Pass a law making it mandatory for all pet retailers in the HRM, to fill
out a pet registration form and collect the license fee upon sale of a pet.

D. LeBlanc

Posted February 19th 2007

A need exists to have someone that is terrific with children & excellent with dogs who understands the behaviour of both. This person (it should always be the same person so the children are comfortable), needs go into the schools at least two to three times yearly to teach children how to behave around dogs.

The most important issue to address is fear of dogs. What to do & how to behave around a strange dog? ...Most children are bitten because of a lack of knowledge & how to act around a dog. Many parents don’t know how to behave themselves in order to teach the kids. I think that it would be good to invite the parents to the school with their own children once yearly to educate all.

By teachingour children about picking up poop they will learn to be responsible, Children then would be the best teacher to teach parents, responsible behaviour.

I would like to see Dog Control do two simple promos about hot & cold weather. (This is not only a SPCA responsibility, under the cruelty act & something they should be doing & will not do) It is also Dog Controls responsibility since they pick up many dogs suffering from weather related conditions.

...I would like to see more work shop gatherings in future that are pertaining to dogs in general. A place were people can put across ideas & help educate each other.

I think Andrew Younger was the founder of the workshop idea in the first place & he should be given high credits for the work shop & bringing it about. We are lucky to have an alderman like him.

E. Rooney

Posted February 19th 2007

I am an avowed off-leash advocate - I make no bones about it. I think that in order for a dog to have a wholesome, fulfilled, well-rounded life - they need to run. And that includes dogs who don't get along with other dogs, and dogs who like to chase bicycles, and dogs who like to chase joggers, and dogs who like to wrestle, and dogs who like to stop and pee on every tree they come upon. The dogs whose humans own them just have special challenges. I personally own dogs who have some (but not all of those) characteristics, and I take them into consideration when and where I take them to run...[Dogs] also need to run in a variety of places. Just running around in a field - like at Seaview Park - isn't good enough. It's a more traditional type of dog park in that it's a fenced in flat area where the dogs are all together and they can wrestle and chase each other...It's certainly not a type of park that all types of dogs can handle. A very dominant dog who can't control his impulses and gets over-excited ...is NOT a good candidate for daily off-leash exercise at Seaview Park.

Daily off-leash exercise at a place like Point Pleasant Park might be ideal for a dog like that because a sniff and pass experience with other dogs might be fine for him...the dog still gets to run, and sniff every tree, and bond with his owner, and see other dogs, and socialize. But there are also joggers and bicycles there in the day time. Some dogs can't handle that.

But on Saturday and Sunday at Point Pleasant Park - bicycles aren't allowed - so on Saturday and Sunday, dogs that can't handle bicycles can go to Point Pleasant Park. Isn't that fabulous?

So the Halifax Regional Municipality currently has 2 parks that are already desingated as off leash dog areas. And between the months of November and May all ballfields in the HRM are off-leash areas between the hours of 6am to 10am.

So what is the problem? Doesn't this sound like enough? Why is the city working on making more off-leash areas when they these areas already? Is it because they want to shut down Seaview and Point Pleasant Park? I hope not. Is it because they want Shubie Park to be the only off-leash area in the whole of the HRM? I hope not. Before I say what I think the HRM should do about off-leash space in the HRM, I want to make a couple points.

#1 - you CANNOT build policy around the tax-payers who don't want the
programs in the first place. You cannot build the off-leash dog policy around the non-dog owners and the people who don't want any off-leash dogs in the HRM.

#2 Trying to judge how many actual dogs there are in the HRM.
144,435 is suggested as the number of households in the HRM and based on that the number of dogs would be 93,017. HRM decided that was too high and took 50% of that number - 46,500. I think that basing the number of dogs on "households" is faulty - you should only base the number of dogs on the number of home owners in the HRM...

So on to what I think that off-leash strategy SHOULD be.........

Keep Point Pleasant Park and Seaview Park as they are. Make a section of Shubie Park in Dartmouth off leash just like Point Pleasant Park for whatever hours that the regular Shubie Park is open - and - make every other park in the Halifax Regional Municipality offleash between the hours of 9pm and 9am.

New York City has been doing this unofficially for the last 20 years and has just made it official as of September 2006.

The Halifax Regional Municipality in many ways is one of the dog-friendliest municipalities in all of North America. We are on the leading edge in so many ways. We could continue to be so if we were to do something like this. To have an off-leash policy as enlightened as New York City would put us on the national stage, and I think that a "smart city" such as ours deserves it. I know our dogs certainly do.

J. Sinden

Posted February 19th 2007

I don’t think the option of “HRM Parks Healthy Dog Friendly Areas Strategy Regulations” are feasible. Some people, like myself do not vaccinate their dog due to personal beliefs. I think dogs are over vaccinated by vets and the early vaccination of puppies can cause severe life-long damage to dogs and in some cases death...So according to this Healthy Dog Friendly strategy my dog would not be allowed in the off leash dog parks....

Who would police these parks to make sure all the dogs had one of the “healthy dog” tags required to be in the park? In the strategy it also mentions that the owner of the dog should never be more than 10 meters from their dog. Kind of hard to let your dog run and get appropriate exercise if it has to be that close to you at all times. 10 meters isn’t very far. It also states that only three dogs per person are allowed at one time. What about dog walkers who sometimes take groups of 4-7 dogs at one time everyday to the park? Now they won’t be able to do this!! I used to go to Seaview Park a lot and see a group of 5 or 6 dogs there everyday with one person in charge of them. I never saw any problems arise with this large a group. The lady watched what the dogs were up to at all times. None of the dogs seemed to stray to far from her.

A. Geall

Posted on February 19th 2007

1. Accessibility:
" Areas suitable for dog-related activities should, as far as possible be
accessible to all."

WHY? If we are looking to have off leash dog parks that should be the
function of a new park, there are enough leash on parks to satisfy the non
dog owning public.

IF we are looking to utilize an existing park i.e. Shubie in Dartmouth then
there should not be a problem to section Shubie so one area is designated
leash free.

Best Management Practices:

e) establish one first year, pilot program.
WHY? Only one? As HRM has only 2 off leash parks and both are situated on the peninsula then the pilot projects must reflect the need for off leash
areas / parks in other districts. Remember shortly after amalgamation over
10 years ago City Council stated that they would be opening new areas to
satisfy the needs and wants of all dog owning constituents.

2. Affordability:

Goal: " HRM will cooperate with dog owners to establish, maintain, and fund cost-efficient off leash areas in city parks.
c) Develop formulas for assessing the monetary value of in-kind
contributions from dog owner groups."

WHY? My civic taxes already are paying for recreational facilities for non
dog use i.e. School yards, ball fields etc.

d) " park access license fees" by doing this you are effectively excluding
tourists from using off leash parks -HRM which now has many hotels that
cater to the dog owning visitor that would be denied access to off leash
parks. Is HRM to issue passes - who is going to distribute passes to
tourists - who is to monitor tags or passes?

f) "dog owner groups will agree to full repayment of capital costs within
specified time period."

WHY? Again my civic taxes sustain playgrounds, courts, soccer pitches etc. -
I do not have children - why should I be penalized because I own a dog and want it to be socialized and have off leash exercise?

4. Cleanliness:
Who will be monitoring this? Who will be enforcing this? How is this to be
achieved? HRM currently cuts back on manpower and services during winter
months in PPP and Seaview. We currently do not have enough PARK PATROL and who will ticket offenders?

f) "require semi-annual deworming certificates for dog owners using parks"
Note: further suggestion of Vet involvement found in the draft regulations:
re: inoculations

What about dogs that are immune sensitive and cannot get all shots...are they exempt?
Why has HRM NOT partnered with Vets to have an information sheet available to all new dog owners as well as existing dog owners to the rules and regulations of HRM?

POINTS and CONCERNS:

1." only 3 dogs per owner of other responsible person are allowed"
I own four dogs .. What about dog walkers?*** talking to various dog walkers who currently work in HRM the consensus is that they would not be adverse to paying a yearly fee for operating HOWEVER limiting numbers of dogs in their care would not address 'problems'. i.e. some dog owners cannot control a single dog in an off leash area whereas dog walkers are more inclined to be highly vigilant and responsible in their care of dogs in their charge.

2. " puppies under four months old are prohibited"
Why? All my dogs got critical socialization at PPP before they were 4 months
old - this should be up to the owner. *** I mentioned this to my Vet, Dr.
Don Rhuston who did not agree with this clause.

3. "HDFAs to report persons who bring dogs without park access tags.and fail to leave when asked."
How is this to be achieved? Said 'offender' could be confrontational etc and
not provide name etc. Since we do not have FULL TIME Park Patrol in PPP and Seaview - who will be able to legally obtain such information? Again what about tourists.

4. faecal samples etc. Good idea overall however HRM should partner with
Vets to provide reasonable discount as a faecal sample can cost
approximately $50.00 without the initial consultation fee. Again HRM is
requiring dog owners to incur further financial expense.
*** Further I spoke with my Vet and he feels that faecal samples are not the
way to go as most clients who take their dogs in for yearly examinations
obtain the heartworm pills that also provide protection from other parasites
- i.e. roundworm.

5. SITE selection is critical. Most dog owners want trails not a small
enclosed dog park i.e. Those found in large urban cities.

6. HRM should stop ticketing HRM residents for off leash dogs in non off
leash parks UNTIL new parks are established for residents. Those special
constables should be going door to door to get dogs tagged. Revenue from HRM tagging could provide funds necessary for establishment of off leash parks.

J. Chernin

Posted February 19th 2007

Requiring a different (far higher) standard of conduct from a select
group (those who wish to walk dogs off leash) is discrimination, by any other
name, and it's totally unacceptable. Can you name any other group of
park users who are expected to:

a. Form a formal user group, with all that entails legally (you can't sign an MOU if you are not a legal entity, and being a legal entity implies bylaws, regular meetings, an executive, etc.)

b. Make formal application to have a section of their neighborhood park
approved for their chosen use

c. Sign a memorandum of understanding with HRM

d. Obtain liability insurance for their collective use of the park

e. Accept responsibility for the cost of converting the park for their chosen use

f. Clean up the park several times a year

g. Get approval from the neighbors

h. Undergo regular assessments to make sure that their use is going
according to the original plan?

We don't have these standards for playground users, joggers, cyclists,
swimmers, walkers, picnickers, or those who walk their dogs on the
leash. Try to imagine quarterly cleanups of the local playground by the
playground users group, and regular audits to check that the playground is being used according to the original MOU! Face it, I'm out there walking my dog in the park because I want a break from work and bureaucracy, not because I want to become part of a legal entity with regular board meetings and a host of obligations. Why am I paying property taxes, if not to grant me reasonably unfettered access to public parks, with somebody else handling the administration and maintenance?

There are numerous examples where the HRM provides public facilities to
specific groups or individuals at or below cost, without anywhere near
this level of regulation. Think about baseball fields, rink rentals, or the
lake patrol and maintenance of rowing facilities on Lake Banook. I can think
of a few triathlon organizers who take over Shubie Park and leave signs
stapled to trees and a big mess in their wake, and they are a cohesive group of people who use the park for a defined purpose for a strictly defined
period of time - when will we start prevailing on them to clean up after
themselves, or have an evaluation of how their behavior influences the
other users of the park? Did we get approval from 70% of the immediate
neighbour's before we decided to use the Commons for the Rolling Stones Concert?

As for regular follow-up to ensure that the off leash zone is in compliance
with the MOU... How will we know which piles of dog poop come from the
off leash dogs, and which are from the on leash dogs? Why would we think of deworming off leash dogs and not require the same of on leash dogs? Dog poop is dog poop, after all.

If you were to audit the existing use of many parks, I suspect you would
find that for a number of parks, the majority users are dog walkers,
with or without leashes. This could well guide your selection of potential
locations for off leash zones.

Next, it seems to me that the initial identification of potential off leash
zones should be automatic, based on specified criteria. Parks which are
large and have the potential to offer separate off leash and on leash
(or dog free) zones would get automatic approval (as is the case with Point
Pleasant), whereas smaller parks with playgrounds etc might not be
eligible at all. Those in between might have to go through an application and
approval process. The application and approval process, as you have
described it, is ridiculous.

The pilot project is not necessary. We've already had a pilot project at
Point Pleasant and at Seaview Park. Review what you've already done, but
don't have another pilot project.

Funding should be plentiful, if you start collecting license fees from the
majority of dog owners. I have always licensed my dogs, and I would
gladly pay more than I do for a dog license, if owning a license had some
benefits, like access to appropriate facilities for my dog. Rather than ticketing
people who show up at the park without a dog license, why not set up a
booth and sell them a license? You only have to sell one license an hour to
pay the wage of the kid manning the booth. Once owners have a license, they are more likely to renew annually. You could take the opportunity to offer some education about responsible dog walking...

Finally, don't confuse the issues. Failure to pick up dog waste is just
as big a sin for those who walk their dogs on the leash. Dogs that lunge at
people and strike fear into their hearts may just as well be on the leash
and yet out of control. The real issue is responsible pet ownership,
effective control, and having a well trained dog.

Posted on February 16th 2007

One item that I would like to see discussed ASAP is the question of allowing off leash useage in parks that are closed during the winter, not just the areas such as sports fields and ball parks. You have alluded to that in the workshop report, but clearly what my small group at the North West Community Council Off Leash Workshop mentioned was the Sandy Lake Park area where most of the dog owners currently go with their pets off leash. It is very dangerous for someone like myself to hike alone through the woods and I stick to the road there now. But I always feel that the dog by law enforcement chap will be there breathing down all our necks. I believe it could easily be done that these closed parks could be used until spring as off leash areas. How will this get passed on to Council and will any action be taken? Is there any political will to do so?

F. Cosman

Posted on February 15th 2007

I have lived in Halifax most of my 60+ years and reside near Point Pleasant Park.

Today I rarely walk my two dogs in Point Pleasant Park. My dogs are small in relation to many others and are always walked on leash because I cannot predict their behavior in circumstances where there are other (and sometimes aggressive) dogs and people including persons with disabilities/ seniors and many small children (who are often running and easily excited) but many who are not dog lovers. More people [using the park]...means greater numbers of dogs since walking them in the Park is an ideal way to exercise the dogs and the owner, but there are others to be considered.

The parks were not originally designed for dogs but for people. As Don Connolly of CBC Information Morning notes when he met the women who were not comfortable with his dog, there are many people who enjoy walking in the Park and who do not enjoy dogs as Don and I do. Does this mean they are not to feel comfortable to take a walk and enjoy the Park areas? We now avoid the Park not only because of being accosted by large and unruly dogs whose owners are nowhere to be seen but also because of another issue which I have not heard mentioned previously.

Last winter when we decided to walk one afternoon, we were disgusted after counting more than 25 piles of dog feces (at that point we gave up). As responsible dog owners we constantly have pockets full of plastic bags and always pick up after our dogs. Who picks up after dogs which are running off leash in the woods and on the paths with their owners often at a distance? These owners are not aware or not concerned about the location of the dog or what the dog deposits in the Park. This is a definite health hazard and although there are fines posted, I have never been aware of this by-law being enforced. This makes the Park experience most unpleasant when you don't know what your next step may encounter.

As a board member of Spencer House Senior Centre and someone who actively works to address concerns and issues affecting the aging population, I want to emphasize the need in our communities for safe walking areas for the increasing number of older Nova Scotians- statistics indicate by the year 2030 approximately one third of our population will be over 65 years. It is important that older people in HRM keep active and have a safe and pleasant environment where they can walk and enjoy nature (perhaps even walk their dog) as much as anyone else....Point Pleasant Park is more easily available to older persons and those with physical disabilities in Halifax because it is on a bus route and offers many level wide roads to stroll and occasional benches for a rest. However, if an individual walks more slowly, has increased difficulties with balance or decreased reaction time, the additional fear or possibility of being approached by a dog which is off leash can be a deterrent to older persons enjoying Park areas.

My point is that all members of our community should feel comfortable to be in our Parks, not just dog owners who want to have dogs off leash... I urge the city staff and decision makers to consider the concerns of all members of this community, not just those with dogs!

Jane Cowie

Posted on February 15th 2007

I'd like to voice my opinion on the "dogs off leash" strategy from a non-dog owner point of view. I used to walk daily through Flynn Park on my way to work, but last summer the increase in the number of dogs "off leash" caused me enough concern that most days I take an alternate route.

Despite the "dogs on leash" signage in Flynn Park present since last summer, most mornings there are 8 or more large dogs off leash blocking the pathway while their owners stand around and talk. This is between the hours of 7:15 and 8:00 a.m.

I've had a few frightening experiences in Flynn park by dogs off leash - once two rochwhilers in an attack stance were growling at me on my left while their owner, who was way down the hill, called out to me that "they won't hurt you"... Another time a young labrador (60 lbs or so) jumped on me and fortunately his owner was close enough to pull him off me before he knocked me over on the icy pathway.

...I used to go for walks in Point Pleasant park but found the dogs off leash caused such a commotion chasing and barking at wildlife (ie squirrels and birds) that one couldn't sit on a park bench to read along the shore walk. Again, this was despite the NO dogs allowed signage for that time of day.

I would like to see separate designated "dogs off leash" areas where there's 1) no children's playground 2) no sportsfield and 3) no public walkway. After all don't us non-dog owners have some right to enjoy the pleasures of our parks.

The owner of any dog has NO CONTROL over that animal's actions when they are OFF leash. And when they're in packs as they often are when owners congregate to talk that's when the risk increases that some innocent bystander will get hurt.

A. Landry

Posted on February 15th 2007

Why are you bothering to waste time and money with this nonsense?

There are already laws and by-laws which are NEVER enforced. I have
complained, in vain, many times about dog owners allowing their pooches
to run freely in packs of 10 or more on the commons EVERY day of the
year. They let their dogs defacate anywhere and everywhere and rarely
pick it up. I play baseball on the commons in the summer and am constantly stepping in it!

It is very intimidating walking across the commons having dogs run at
you or by you while the dog owners simply stand in a group gabbing. When
you say something to them all you get is a bunch of explatives in return.

Again, seeing as that the HRM has failed to enforce existing laws why
bother spending the time, effort and ink to write new ones?

G. Publicover

Posted on February 15th 2007

As a senior who lives in a neighbourhood where there are many responsible dog owners who walk and pick-up after their pets who are on-leash, I find it difficult to understand why public spaces are required for those who prefer public spaces to let their pets run without control.

If it is not convenient for them to take their pet to Seaview or Point Pleasant Parks why should taxpayers be asked to find more space? If Seaview and Point Pleasant are overcrowded with unleashed dogs, then maybe I could understand the demand for more spaces.

Since we live in an urban environment, pet owners should carefully consider why they have pet dogs who must be leash free. If “leash-free” pet ownership is an issue, then responsibility to the community at large who pay the taxes should be an issue as well. I refer to the 10% of dog owners who licence their pets and the 90% who don’t.

Why should the taxpayer pay for more parks and maintenance to cater to dog owners who may or may not even bother to licence their pets?

It seems to me that no tax funded park should be available to un-licenced dogs whether or not they are leashed.

As a park walker in HRM, I am worried about containment for dogs that are free to roam in the same area as I do.

If I knew the containment area (i.e. fenced off areas) and the pets inside were properly supervised and licenced, then I would not object to expanding the number of areas available under certain conditions.

I recommend your study group should not advise on expansion of off leash parks for dogs until the following criteria is met by HRM.

1) Dog owners must comply with licencing regulations before they can use existing leash free parks. This would imply ticketing of offenders whether leashed or unleashed with proceeds going to cover the costs of Seaview and Point Pleasant until a certain percentage of dogs are licenced. A formula can be made for planning new parks. It could be based on reaching certain milestones in compliance and costs.

2) HRM elected officials should reflect on why they are being pressured to cater to a large group of dog owners whose vast majority ignore their current privileges of ownership.

3) HRM Real Property Planning should establish a funding and support formula that elected officials (and taxpayers) can support in the long run without pressure from “leash-free” dog lovers.

4) Precise costs and usage should be known to taxpayers in published documents with expansion and contraction of leash-free parks based on usage and costs. (A variable would be legitimate complaints from citizens).

In short, I am not in favour of arbitrary expansion of leash-free parks and would recommend contraction if accepted formulas cannot be met.

J.T. Greenham

Posted on February 15th 2007

Dog ownership is a responsibility, and for most dogs leash-walking is not enough exercise. Dogs need to run to stay healthy-off leash areas are needed.

What is the fundamental issue that this strategy has been drafted to resolve? It would be helpful for us as participants in the process to know what the issue is exactly that we’re trying to solve. How many complaints have Councillors received as a result of bad dog/owner behaviour? Do we truly have a health and safety issue? Are people getting hurt as a result of dogs being off leash? It would be useful to have the statistics so this strategy can be used to resolve the real issue(s).

Your draft strategy assumes too much of the community, volunteer driven approach (e.g. Markham). I suggest taking a step back and removing references to “Dog Owner Groups” (however clever the acronym...) Because I don’t think they’ll work. No one at our table was receptive to the idea, and we were vehemently opposed to the heavy responsibility and liability insurance. Dog owners use parks 7 days a week, 2 times per day, 365 days of the year. I use the Dartmouth Commons and 70% of the time I don’t see a soul. A few at my table noted that they make the park safer by being in it. My partner and I also pick up garbage regularly...

Ultimately, a balanced approach relies on people - all people respecting common sense. A strategy HRM-wide will not help addressing a few stubborn or rude dog owners. Each dog owner is responsible for knowing their dog, knowing their dog's behaviour triggers (if any), and having control over their dog (on or off leash) through training. A strategy won't ensure that.

I support the Point Pleasant Park model. No dogs in one area, leashed in another, free in most of the park. Shubie Park, being the size it is could also accommodate that model.

I would support the Dartmouth Commons being off-leash- like I said, there is hardly anyone there. Might want to put time or date limits around the field area, but its entirely fenced, and close to the downtown core so no need to drive.

M. Westhead