The Case Against Dog Parks.

Dog parks. A quick check will verify that just about any American city or town now has one, or several. But what exactly is a ‘dog park’, strictly speaking?

Generally, a dog park is a designated area where dogs may be let off their restraints (leads, leashes, etc.) to exercise and interact freely with each other.

There are several kinds of dog parks, including those that are public and free (operated by a municipality, such as a city or township), parks that are privately sponsored (in which participant dog owners must be registered and who generally pay fees to belong), but there are also specialised dog parks that may (for example) be sited at a seashore and encompass substantially large areas in which the dogs are free to roam at will.

Most recently, there has been a tendency towards establishing separate parks for both larger and smaller dogs, prompted by the awareness that some larger breeds may have strong prey drives that might put smaller dogs at risk. At any rate, having two separate parks for large & smaller dogs is a logical, common-sense proposition.

Where exactly did the concept for establishing a dog park come from, one might well ask? According to the best general information available, the dog park idea originated in…where else?...Berkeley, California, back in the late 60s/early 70s about the time Berkeley’s famous student protests were in full flower. I can state that to the best of my own personal knowledge, the above assumption is a solid fact, since I was resident in Berkeley and attending college there at this time (as an undergrad). I well recall People’s Park and also the protests that eventually led to the University of California taking back that parcel of university property forcefully and ‘repurposing’ it. However, one of the results of the famous fracas was that an unused strip of BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) land was subsequently declared to be a ‘People’s Park Annex’.

Used for small sustenance garden plots, impromptu gatherings, happenings and what have you, it was not until some years later (1979) that two local Berkeley women (Martha Benedict and Doris Richards) established what is now acknowledged as the very first ‘dog park’ at this site (the annex). Despite this, the City of Berkeley did not officially recognise that park until 1983, when the city formally sanctioned it for dog use. Today’s Berkeley now has, incidentally, over 100 such sanctioned dog parks just in that city alone!

From that time onwards, however, the idea of declaring a specific area as a dog play and free interaction area (i.e. leash-free) has grown substantially, as the idea caught hold of the public’s imagination. Today, dog parks are nearly everywhere one might care to look. Some are, as might be expected, scarcely more than a fenced-in and undeveloped section of land, while at the other end of the spectrum there are considerably developed and improved parks with an elaborate range of amenities (such as fountains, benches, landscaping and elaborate fencing perimeters).

Now, the idea of having a place where dogs may mix without restraint or restriction has an immediate, broad appeal to many, since dog parks seem to have a number of advantageous aspects upon initial consideration. First, they enable dog owners to (in theory at least) exercise their dogs effortlessly (by allowing them to run and play as they wish, while keeping in a securely enclosed area). Second, they fill a need in areas where walking dogs on leads may be for various reasons problematic. Finally, the idea appeals to a somewhat misguided assumption on the part of dog owners that dogs prefer to play with each other willingly and unrestrictedly (this has been shown to be generally untrue, as we’ll see somewhat later in this piece).

Further, as cities and municipalities began to restrict individuals who let their dogs run free in public park areas, leash-laws came into general enforcement and those who flaunted these rules were subject to fines & fees. Having a designated dog park thus simultaneously fulfilled an increasingly important need in today’s increasingly congested communities.

And so at present, the ubiquitous dog park has come a standard fixture in most cities of the United States. But is that really as good an idea as it might initially seem?

The question begs deeper consideration of several other, broader issues that usually manage to elude the regard of most individuals who are not intuitively reflective or intelligently perceptive by nature.

Among these are the fact that the range of awareness, levels of responsibility, ‘civic-mindedness’ and intelligence (for lack of a better word) among dog owners varies rather profoundly. It also varies by class, education and wisdom…all qualities that vary equally throughout our society.

As a tangential aside here, I should hasten to affirm that just as some people aren’t really qualified to be responsible parents (and therefore shouldn’t have children), some also should not be allowed to keep dogs (or cats, for that matter). Unfortunately, the history of dogs and people as co-partners & companions in life has established a precedent several thousand years old whereby there are few (if any) restrictions on who may own or keep a domestic pet in America.

Examples of this sort of thing can be seen every day, whereby a person of low intelligence, education and/or awareness has or keeps dogs that are known to have more potential for aggression than other breeds and who makes few or no efforts to keep them responsibly. I’ve seen examples of nearly every type and recall one in particular, in a poor part of town, in which a teenager was walking five (5!) pitbull dogs down the street. They were on leads, but I shouldn’t have to say that that is somewhat excessive.

This kid probably comes from a family which regards a Pitbull dog more as a status pronouncement that advertises ‘I’m a bad dude: don’t mess with me!’, rather than a delightful family companion kept as a much-loved pet. There are others who keep dogs that are known to have aggressive tendencies (or that were originally bred for security and/or fighting purposes; many are ‘pitbull types, German Shepherds, etc,) kept penned up in their yards as security dogs that are never socialized to other dogs, people or whatever, and that never get out to go on walks or receive the slightest training whatsoever (we have one or two neighbors like this in our neighborhood).

Let me quickly say here (before all the Pitbull owners reading this grab a rope and hustle me off to the nearest tall tree) that I am not categorically accusing Pitbull dogs or German Shepherds of being inherently bad or potentially violent dogs, but those breeds are but two of a number that were originally bred for either fighting or security purpose and it is a solid fact that without the appropriate training, socialization and owner-care, they are often capable of violence. Doubt that? Just check the stats relating to dog-bite attacks in the United States.

[Note: Let me quote here from an extremely good book you all should read and familiarise yourselves with, by Dr. Bruce Fogel, a highly respected authority on canine behavior. His book is titled 'The Dog's Mind: Understanding your Dog's Behavior'.

"The most troublesome breed in America today is the American Pitbull Terrier. In North America, more human deaths and serious injuries are caused by this breed than by any other. They have been selectively bred to attack and to hold on tenaciously. They have jaw muscles that can be inches thick with a crushing power of several hundred pounds per square inch. All information points to the conclusion that these dogs are simply (bred to be) killing machines. But as with all other aspects of the dog's mind, the situation is not necessarily as it appears to be.

"When 20 human fatalities from Pitbull Terrier attacks were studied, several common denominators were observed. 10 of the 20 lethal dogs were owned by males between the ages of 20 to 25 years. 11 of the owners of these 20 dogs had criminal records and 7 of those had criminal records for violence. Eleven of the dogs showed signs of physical abuse.

"There is no question that the Pitbull Terrier has been selectively bred for heightened and tenacious aggression but the problem with this breed is not simply of genetics. It is in fact a human problem in that, for whatever the reasons may be, these dogs are bred and trained, often trained with cruelty and abuse, to attack and not let go. Many towns in the United States and Canada have passed local ordinances restricting the keeping of Pitbull Terriers. One of the first towns to do so was Lynn, MA. A short time after that ordinance was passed, a local veterinarian reported that whereas he had 300 Pitbull Terriers in his records before the ordinance was enacted, he now had 200 and no pups. However, the number of Rottweilers jumped from 20 to 150 in the same period." ]

This leads to another consideration and that is that dogs are not inherently either ‘bad’ or ‘violent’ in and of themselves. It is acknowledged by almost all dog authorities that in every case of ‘dog violence’, it is not the dog at fault but the owner who is to blame for the incident. The old saying “There are no bad dogs…just bad owners” may sound somewhat trite in the saying, but it’s true enough. I’d even venture to say that over a third of all dog owners fall into this category (although that may be a bit overstated, since bad dog owners are more publicly visible than good ones).

And here, in a tightly focused nutshell, lies the core of the problem with dog parks. Dog owners are as inconsistent and variable as snowflakes. Some are wonderfully responsible, conscientious and civic-minded. Others are hopelessly ‘stupid’ (sorry, there’s no better word to sum this quality up concisely) and ignorant. In between are thousands of differences in attitude and outlook, vis-à-vis their ability to care for and take care of dogs they may have acquired. This extreme variability in human nature and basic ability mirrors that found in any random population of human beings and it is this factor that makes a dog park…any dog park…as much of a sure bet as tossing the dice in a gambling establishment.

Earlier, I mentioned the fact that most acknowledged dog authorities now advocate separating dogs by size at dog parks. Larger dogs are often given an area of their own that is keep physically separate from an area for smaller breeds. This is in its simplest sense just basic common sense, since certain larger dogs may have genetic tendencies towards what is called a ‘prey drive’, or an inherited inclination to seek out and chase (or attack) small wild prey.

In the rough and tumble of dog play, dog interactions can sometimes turn deadly without warning when the behavioral limit that divides ‘play activity’ from ‘aggressive activity’ is exceeded. Dogs are, after all, still linked to their wolfish ancestors by more than just a figurative margin. Most individuals are totally astonished to learn that ALL contemporary dog breeds contain about 99.98% of their wolf ancestors DNA.

That is NOT an exaggeration, as any DNA analysis of any dog can quickly reveal. In the case of my own husky bitch (Nala), her DNA returned from a recent analysis confirming that fact unignorably. Hence separating big dogs from smaller dogs in a dog park just makes excellent sense.

Unfortunately, the mere separation of larger & smaller breeds at a dog park doesn’t solve all the potential problems arising from the concept of letting dogs play & interact freely. There's also the fact that dog parks are an excellent place for your dog to catch something from another dog that may have a medical problem or a disease (dogs sometimes eat other dogs offal and contamination by saliva contact or another distinct possibility; intestinal parasites are another commonly transmitted vector).

One common assumption many dog owners make is that all dogs like playing with each other, all the time and in all places. This has been proven by animal behaviorists to be completely untrue. It has additionally been shown in the more recent animal studies involving dogs that the majority of dogs actually prefer playing exclusively with either their owners (their ‘humans’) or with closely bonded litter-mates and ‘companion dogs’ (dogs raised together in a single household, with shared owners).

Additionally, dogs vary in their personalities exactly as do human beings. There are some that are outgoing, adventurous and spirited and others that (for various reasons typically traceable to inadequacies in their upbringing and/or possible abuse by owners) definitely do not feel comfortable around other (strange or unfamiliar) dogs.

Thus, forcing a particular dog to mix with strange dogs at a dog park under the assumption that a dog will ‘enjoy’ the interactions can (and often does) trigger anxieties and latent fear in some that may in itself precipitate aggression, ‘fear biting’ or other less-desirable canine characteristics.

There are other excellent reasons why promoting the ‘dog park’ idea is not such a wonderful thing. As was noted recently in The Whole Dog Journal, ‘…more and more dog training and behavioral professionals are speaking out against dog parks’. As the idea of a common park area for dogs to play in freely has popularized itself, it has become apparent that the preponderant number of what might be called ’knowledgeable and responsible dog owners’ prefer NOT take their dogs to such locales.

A chat with almost any of them quickly produces horror stories about either belligerent dogs (i.e. ‘overstimulated’ dogs, dogs exhibiting unacceptable alpha characteristics, ‘bully dog’ behaviors or prey drive inclinations, etc.) or equally obnoxious owners who fail to note their dogs’ unacceptable behavior or in many cases actually become reactively aggressive when these problems with their pets are pointed out to them.

Just recently, at an open ‘dog area’ in the nearby city of Lodi (CA), a small, mild-mannered Dachshund type dog was set upon and killed by several larger dogs. This is not an isolated incident, according to several reputable sources, with such impermissible occurrences becoming more and more commonplace. Each month several such violent dog-involved incidents occur across the country at uncontrolled or loosely controlled dog parks.

One of the problems noted in association with many municipalities’ dog parks is that there is no active supervision or enforcement at the sites. Dog owners are left to settle their own problems and resolve any difficulties that may occur. Unfortunately, due to deficit ‘people qualities’ possessed by many of the less astute dog owners, these incidents frequently turn into ‘flash-point’ arguments, with not just dogs bearing the brunt of the altercations, but their human owners as well. As anyone with half a functioning brain can tell you, these are the basic components of potentially complex and costly civil (or even criminal, depending upon intent) litigation.

Most dog parks are fortunate if they are frequented by a few well-balanced, wise and mature individuals who will act as ombudsmen, as the need arises, but all too often self-appointed ‘referees’ turn out to be as annoying, ignorant or ineffectual as the proper authorities dog parks typically lack.

Fortunately, a good number of excellent books are available that address all of these concerns, including ‘Dog Law’ (2nd ed., 1994) by Mary Randolph, and ‘Keeping the Peace’ (3rd ed., 1999) by Nicole Wilde. The former book is a very informative and valuable reference on all things relating to keeping dogs within the bounds of local laws. I highly recommend it. The latter deals with dog/dog aggression and unacceptable behavior both in the home and in public.

Of course, these are merely two in a virtual list that contains perhaps as many as 500 or more individual works dealing with dog and pet-owner behavior, most of which remain completely unknown to the average individual because so many dog owners fail to realise and/or accept that owning a dog…any dog…imposes a huge responsibility that entails effort and continuous, conscientious work.

Again, getting back to one of my earlier complaints, there are few regulations governing whether someone is qualified or not to own a dog…just the same way nothing prevents two not-very-bright people from spawning their own little marginally bright offspring. The result of this laissez-faire policy is that ignorance breeds ignorance among humans just as it perpetuates ignorance among so many dog owners who are totally clueless about how best to be a responsible pet owner.

Of course, it shouldn’t take urging by myself or anyone else to encourage everyone with a pet to learn as much about the obligations and responsibilities of pet ownership (whether dogs, cats, or Australian Wombats!) as possible. I like to think that any literate individual keeping a domestic pet would be self-motivated to learn as much as humanly possible about how to be a good pet-parent. But, no, that’s not the way human nature works (or doesn’t). Most people take pet ownership as nonchalantly as they take the need for an adequate night’s sleep to maintain good health. Human nature, again.

Although there are, as pointed out above, any number of good books available for anyone wishing to more fully be apprised of the advantages and disadvantages of using a dog park, one article that may be especially useful to some is titled ‘The Pros and Cons of Dog Parks’, a piece that originally appeared in The Whole Dog Journal (authored by Pat Miller).

One argument that one runs into advanced by dog park proponents is that leashes (or leads) can provoke a territorial response in many dogs, a situation that is theoretically relieved at a dog park, where dogs are allowed to interact freely. The suggestion here is that roaming freely is (naturally) beneficial for dogs.

This is, unfortunately, another good example of fallacious, simplistic thinking because ‘pack behavior’ by dogs at dog parks is the result of a script that can change instantly, from moment to moment. Dog behavior among dogs thrown in to a mix of other (strange) dogs can quickly become quite chaotic.

In circumstances wherein dogs have been appropriately allowed to gradually get used to each other (and establish an individual hierarchy in the group), more reasonable accommodation and less conflict may be expected. But since attendance at a dog park is sporadic, and the erstwhile dog park ‘pack’ is never the same from day to day, this sort of adjustment typically never occurs. It is another example of a far-too simple understanding applied to a far-from-simple proposition by dog owners.

Speaking for myself and based upon my own many years of experience with husky breeds, I have encountered just about every variant in terms of dog behavior and human interaction, at dog parks as well as in public parks strictly governed by leash-laws (that far too many totally disregard, to the annoyance of responsible dog people). I’ve seen too many dog owners bring dogs to a dog park and then stand around either absorbed in a smartphone or chatting distractedly with others, while their dog or dogs run amok. I’ve seen dog owners (of every age, gender and type) merrily let their dogs run around pooping freely just about anywhere and refusing to pick up after them. I’ve seen people with Pitbull type dogs ‘bully’ other, smaller, mild-manner lap dogs. And of course, I’ve seen people with dogs known for their high ‘prey-drive’ tendencies (my own huskies are in this group) let their dogs run around totally unsupervised among smaller dogs (never a good idea).

I can therefore say that in my opinion, the very best place to take a dog is to a public park on a leash, so that the dog is always well supervised and under both direct observation (AND control).

Just in case anyone is uncertain as to what ‘direct control’ actually is, it most definitely is NOT ‘voice control’. Direct control requires a physically constraining lead or leash and in all public parks throughout the US nowadays, leash-laws apply and can technically be enforced at any time. Most parks almost without exception feature prominently displayed signs advising of leash-laws, but even in California’s little hick-town of a Capitol (Sacramento), I have had to actively pester the city to erect signs of this type in some of our local public parks. Fortunately, the city has usually been responsive (but it isn’t always this easy to accomplish in these difficult times of constrained budgets and reduced public works manpower availability).

Just yesterday, I began taking my husky bitch to a local neighborhood park near us for later afternoon walks. As we rounded the park (it is roughly oblong and about 2000 yards long), we came across an older chap who was sitting in his car while his equally older Golden Lab dog roamed about freely. When I came near to him my girl became reactive to his (unrestrained) dog, so I brought this up with him.

“Well”, he allowed, “I suppose I should have her on a leash, but she’s such an old and gentle dog, she wouldn’t hurt anyone or anything.”

Rather than try to explain why this was NOT a sufficient excuse in a leash-mandatory public park, I simply glowered and walked on, but on three subsequent days I again ran into the same pair, doing the same thing clearly in violation of the leash-law.

That day, after I returned from the walk, I contacted my city council member (for the neighborhood area I live in) and requested that the city post the necessary signs (which it never originally had). To their credit, the city complied rather quickly, but if I hadn’t threatened to show up at a city council meeting with a camera crew and a local friend who is a well-known media anchor on one of our Sacramento news media channels, I still wonder whether that would have produced the quick response or not. Bottom line, however, was that I did get the requested signs and to everyone’s credit, all the scofflaws who formerly let their dogs roam freely out there now keep them on leads at that park.

Promoting ‘responsible dog ownership’ is just part of what all these issues focus on, of course, but one should never mistake a trip to the dog park as fulfilling the daily exercise requirement most dogs have. It is well known that a ‘tired dog’ is a good dog, since boredom levels often create, enhance or perpetuate undesirable (destructive) canine behaviors. Most dogs should have at least 35 minutes of brisk exercise each day and letting a dog ‘play’ with other dogs in a dog park is no substitute for this. Taking a dog long on a brisk walk (at least 4 mph) is beneficial both to dog and owner, from a cardio standpoint. Runners can easily get this sort of a mutual workout with their dog alongside and I’ve even seen a few owners exercise their dogs on a lead while riding a bicycle (although for several good reasons this is not necessarily a good idea).

One of the major problems with dogs and their owners is that far too many owners do not recognise the fact that keeping a dog…any dog…imposes a substantial burden of responsibility. Someone (or a family) may acquire a dog casually (say from a city pound as a ‘rescue’…potentially a wonderful gesture that is to be greatly encouraged) but fail to provide all the care, attention, love, affection and exercise requirements all dogs have.

I recall one very sad case involving an immediate next-door neighbor, who is what I would call a ‘good Christian soul’, but not as sharp as he ideally ought to be. When his daughter was small, he bought her a Black Lab dog as a pet. Given the fact that the daughter (who was raised by her dad, in a motherless, single-parent home) was quite a poorly trained, irresponsible kid herself, once she hit high school age (puberty, ya gotta love it!) suddenly ‘her’ dog was no longer a subject of interest to her and so this poor Lab was left alone in the back yard of their home for the rest of his life, with no love, no attention and ignored almost as if he didn’t exist. As a result, he became a neurotic barker and continued to annoy the neighborhood day in and day out until, some 10 years later, when he finally crossed the Rainbow Bridge.

Despite the fact that he was never overtly physically abused, and disregarding the fact that he was at least fed regularly, it was still an act of most inhumane neglect to totally ignore him in this way. That he suffered so, living a quiet, melancholy life without even the slightest vestige of the human warmth & affection so many dogs need (and especially Labs, who are normally quite active dogs) is something that I can never forgive this neighbor for. It would have been more merciful if the neighbor had taken him to a local no-kill shelter, where at least he would have had another chance at finding a ‘forever home’. Sigh.

I’ll close this piece by citing a useful excerpt from an excellent paper by Laurel Allen (author of ‘Dog Parks: Benefits and Liabilities’ (2007, University of Pennsylvania). The foregoing paper is downloadable in PDF form and contains much helpful material on the subject of dog park planning, construction and establishment.

“Most dog parks result from the perceived needs of a local dog owner’s community without guidance or input from experienced park designers, park designers, veterinarians or experts on dog behavior. There is not comprehensive reference manual outlining the requirements for the design of a safe and well-maintained dog park. The only available reference for local dog park advocates is Susyn Stecchi’s ‘So You Want to Build a Dog Park?’, 2006, which was written from the perspective of an AAHA certified animal hospital practice manager, and dog owner & founder of the first public dog park in Florida; Stecchi operates a business that promotes dog park construction, called ‘Dog Parks USA’. Untapped authorities who could be used to assist novices in the design of dog parks include livestock keepers, farmers, cattlemen, ranchers, game farmers, veterinarians, kennel owners and zookeepers, most of whom have had decades of experience with animal husbandry.”

This is just one instance of a number of very helpful sources of information available to anyone willing to poke around on the internet. In summary, there’s little excuse for anyone being a clueless dip-sh*t pet owner these days (unless they’re just plain stupid and as we all know, despite medical science’s many advances, there’s still no cure for stupid!). Why we tolerate the idiots among us who refuse to understand what ‘basic community obligation and responsibility’ are all about is one of those great mysteries that continues to elude my personal comprehension!

Woof!