Sutherland wrote:
So after all the noise on this thread only about 11 or 12 people attended the meeting???

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

jcnight wrote:
I dont get it!!! Are you actually fighting to be able to walk a dog on the grass or is the underlying reason your arguing this situation beacuse you really want to throw a ball on the grass and let your dog chase it????
If it is the later I will tell you now IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN

This is about allowing people whose dogs cannot go into dog-runs to use the park. Many people have dogs that are rescues etc and they don't do well in confined spaces with lots of other dogs. These people should still be able to walk their dogs in the park. It is their park too. BTW? A dog free park would be the stupidest idea ever. Do you really want a park where homeless people and criminals are given free reign at night? The dog walkers are the eyes and ears of the neighborhood. Anyway, you can't keep us out so might as well put it out of your mind.

jcnight wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

jcnight wrote:
If my choices are making that park 100% pet free or having those dogs run around and ruin the grass and the rest of the park then I hope they make that park pet free forever.
I would vote for it in a heart beat and I have 2 dogs.
Why is it so important for you to be in that park with your dogs if your NOT going to be allowed to let them run amuck.
Standing or walking on the grass with out your mutts is 100% okay.

Wouldnt you walk your dogs on the side walk anyways if you don't use the runs?

I dont get it!!! Are you actually fighting to be able to walk a dog on the grass or is the underlying reason your arguing this situation beacuse you really want to throw a ball on the grass and let your dog chase it????
If it is the later I will tell you now IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN

This is about allowing people whose dogs cannot go into dog-runs to use the park. Many people have dogs that are rescues etc and they don't do well in confined spaces with lots of other dogs. These people should still be able to walk their dogs in the park. It is their park too. BTW? A dog free park would be the stupidest idea ever. Do you really want a park where homeless people and criminals are given free reign at night? The dog walkers are the eyes and ears of the neighborhood. Anyway, you can't keep us out so might as well put it out of your mind.

I understand and respect your statement about dogs that do not do well in confined spaces, etc..... but those dogs would be just as fine ( better beacuse less populated) to walk their dogs on the side walk.
Mind you I have one of those dogs that cannot go into a run or really play nice around other dogs so.......... I call bull shit to your statement.......... Thou I still respect it................

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

jcnight wrote:
If my choices are making that park 100% pet free or having those dogs run around and ruin the grass and the rest of the park then I hope they make that park pet free forever.
I would vote for it in a heart beat and I have 2 dogs.
Why is it so important for you to be in that park with your dogs if your NOT going to be allowed to let them run amuck.
Standing or walking on the grass with out your mutts is 100% okay.

Wouldnt you walk your dogs on the side walk anyways if you don't use the runs?

I dont get it!!! Are you actually fighting to be able to walk a dog on the grass or is the underlying reason your arguing this situation beacuse you really want to throw a ball on the grass and let your dog chase it????
If it is the later I will tell you now IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN

This is about allowing people whose dogs cannot go into dog-runs to use the park. Many people have dogs that are rescues etc and they don't do well in confined spaces with lots of other dogs. These people should still be able to walk their dogs in the park. It is their park too. BTW? A dog free park would be the stupidest idea ever. Do you really want a park where homeless people and criminals are given free reign at night? The dog walkers are the eyes and ears of the neighborhood. Anyway, you can't keep us out so might as well put it out of your mind.

jcnight wrote:
If my choices are making that park 100% pet free or having those dogs run around and ruin the grass and the rest of the park then I hope they make that park pet free forever.
I would vote for it in a heart beat and I have 2 dogs.
Why is it so important for you to be in that park with your dogs if your NOT going to be allowed to let them run amuck.
Standing or walking on the grass with out your mutts is 100% okay.

Wouldnt you walk your dogs on the side walk anyways if you don't use the runs?

I dont get it!!! Are you actually fighting to be able to walk a dog on the grass or is the underlying reason your arguing this situation beacuse you really want to throw a ball on the grass and let your dog chase it????
If it is the later I will tell you now IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN

Sutherland wrote: Again, this diagram blatantly fails to illuminate the sections of the park dedicated to dog use. So as usual you're a wing-nut who's full of crap. Quote:

brewster wrote: Quote:

Vigilante wrote: BTW? Here is a diagram of Hamilton Park. I have colorized the new areas with red that would obviously be "pet free" plus the rest of the grassy NW quadrant. Looks about right. No need for any new "proposals". The law is 50% designated pet free. Nuff said.

Here's the reality based map of where dogs would be allowed as per the proposal I've heard, rather than V's paranoid fantasy. Leashed dogs can go anywhere green. Whether it's definitely those 2 segments I'm not certain.

brewster wrote: Quote:

Vigilante wrote: BTW? Here is a diagram of Hamilton Park. I have colorized the new areas with red that would obviously be "pet free" plus the rest of the grassy NW quadrant. Looks about right. No need for any new "proposals". The law is 50% designated pet free. Nuff said.

Here's the reality based map of where dogs would be allowed as per the proposal I've heard, rather than V's paranoid fantasy. Leashed dogs can go anywhere green. Whether it's definitely those 2 segments I'm not certain.

G_Elkind wrote:
Wah, Wah, Wah... me, me, me ... my, my, my... they did it... they're doing it... is it paranoia, lead poisoning or people just off their meds or their rockers?

This thread (with some exceptions) has driven off a cliff, but was this not to be expected?

It's become a disappointing, but familiar display of personal, self-obsessed, self-absorbed, self-centered, self-serving, selfish, scare mongering vicissitudes.

Clearly, on this site, on this thread, and perhaps maybe also in Hamilton Park, civility has truly died or maybe it's been dead so long we no longer recall the time when we had it.

The City Council made the right decision years ago when it granted the DPW Director the power to exercise the Judgment of Solomon on pet free zones. Only God knows that Hell might just be a place called Hamilton Park... and Vigilante will be there at the gate to remind you.

All the best.

G

P.S. In the interest of full and candid disclosure... I don't live on the park, and I'm both canine and child neutral -- having neither, but able to appreciate the needs of both.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Where did you see/hear this proposal?

It's simply the obviously dog free activity enclosures, plus 2 lawn segments.

This is just one idea of the best layout, giving a dog friendly section next to the runs, and a clear one next to the playground. Your assigning all areas anywhere near a non-dog enclosure is as forbidden is simply not accurate.

You didn't answer the question. Whose proposal did you see? The HPNA (private citizens like myself) or someone's in City Hall? Who are these people that feel they can control the final plan?

Vigilante wrote:
Where did you see/hear this proposal?

Vigilante wrote: BTW? Here is a diagram of Hamilton Park. I have colorized the new areas with red that would obviously be "pet free" plus the rest of the grassy NW quadrant. Looks about right. No need for any new "proposals". The law is 50% designated pet free. Nuff said.

peanut wrote:
Really, you play tennis outside of the courts, i don't?

I'm just saying that if you really want people to listen, then you need to approach this from an un-bias side. I know dogs will go there an probably pee on the fence, or are you proposing that you want this to be part the dog free area? I'm OK with that, i just don't want to smell/sit in pee or poop anymore.

peanut wrote:
and the space around the outside of the tennis courts? should be green right?

robotjustin wrote:
I'd like to propose a 100% "living thing free zone." HP could be paved over, and fenced in, or maybe we could dig a hole down to the mantle and kind of peer over an' watch it roil.

robotjustin wrote:
I'd like to propose a 100% "living thing free zone." HP could be paved over, and fenced in, or maybe we could dig a hole down to the mantle and kind of peer over an' watch it roil.

Vigilante: Who proposed these "pet-free zones"? Half of the new Hamilton Park is already, obviously "pet-free". If they are talking about putting signs on the playground, basketball court and tennis courts then that's one thing. If not then basically someone is trying to whittle it down to 25% pet friendly versus 75% pet-free. I call bullshit on this one if that is the case. One half of One half is One quarter or 25% of the park. We already got duped on the design and now this?

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

Sutherland wrote:
Once a dog is outside, it's pretty hard to stop them from peeeing or crapping on a grassy area. Even if the pet owner is vigilant about picking up after their dog, there is often residual left behind.

As a dog owner, IMHO there is no real reason why other dog owners can't keep their leashed dogs confined to the walking paths and then let them off leash in the designated dog run.


With some limited exceptions it seems most dog owners share my view on this. People want some dog free space.

If you believe that then you are out of your mind.