I thought Mary Porter did a great job keeping the meeting focused and letting people speak. The city finally presented some reasonable solutions and gave the sense that they want to try to make something work. I also felt there was an overwhelming support for some sort of dog park in Patterson Park. Pro dog park people conveyed a sense of wanting to cooperate with all park users to come to some sort of solution. There were a handful of people who were against some of the dog park proposals and they tended to talk often and over other speakers.

I also thought the meeting went well. Props go to Rec & Parks for starting and ending on time!

Like Mike, I thought the City did a fine job of clearly explaining the issues at hand.

If there was a criticism, I think that there were people who had dreamed up worst case scenarios, and those people seemed to have the floor and speak up more frequently than the majority of people who were for some sort of dog park solution. Plenty of people with more reasonable views didn't get heard.

Really, with some of these scenarios, you'd think that a kid gets near a dog and is immediately a candidate for reconstructive surgery!

If the City does end up having another meeting about this issue in Patterson Park, I would hope that they institute a sign-in system as they do for hearings.:
Sign in pro or con, and check if you want to speak. I think that would be the fairest way to gauge how people feel about the issue, and allows everyone a chance to speak.

The meeting went really well, especially considering how passionate all of the attendees are about dogs (or no dogs) and the issues at hand. Mary Porter did a bang-up job, as Mike mentioned, at letting people get their say in - all in all it went a lot better than I anticipated. I'm not sure what the next steps will be towards off-leash hours, or what the timeline is for implementing them, but another community meeting in a few weeks would be great. Considering the amount of information covered and debate that ensued, I was really happy to be a part of it.

There are a lot of issues still to work out, but at least this is a few baby steps forward. I'm all for off leash hours, the sooner the better. We'll see what happens in the next few weeks!

I think it's disrespectful to all participants when you call people who are fearful for their children, their dogs, and themselves unreasonable just because they are presenting a point of view that differs from yours. the simple fact is that children and dogs HAVE been hurt in Patterson Park and in other places where there are dogs. Risk should always be minimized when possible even if it's inconvenient for the person creating the risk.

Ellen, I agree with you that people at the meeting were playing out "worst case scenarios," but the reality is that this is what governments have to do when they are creating public policy. They have to recognize the genuine risks and liabilities and go above and beyond to prevent them. And while most dogs will be controlled by most owners and do not pose a threat, there are some outliers who do pose a genuine threat. And this is not a fantastical scenario--dog bites and attacks happen in this city every day and can be very serious, even fatal. I know that dog owners have been working very diligently on this issue for many years and are naturally more than ready to see a solution NOW. But taking the long-range view, it does not serve dog owners if the city rushes into this under conditions which are likely to result in dog bites or attacks. There would be extreme public outcry, especially given the tension over this issue that already exists, and the reasonable likelihood is that the program would be shut down. Better to take the time to do it right and create a program that can be sustained and benefit all parties.

I'm a dog owner myself, but I am totally against any off-leash playing in non-fenced areas. Nevertheless, I respect that I can simply avoid the parks where this is being implemented. As someone who has concerns, I believe the proposal does a good job of addressing those concerns.

However, I strongly object to allowing owners to have 3 dogs. I've taken my two dogs to play in fenced-in dog parks, and even there, it is difficult to keep track of them. Three dogs would be very difficult to monitor in any situation. And if a skirmish should develop, owners need to have free hands to separate their dogs. You can do this with 2 dogs, but not with 3. I'd like to see that revised in the plan.

I would like to know what is being done at the moment about all the people with dogs that are breaking the law by allowing their dogs to run off leash? There has yet to be an area, or times approved for such activity. If the authorities were to step up their citation of these law breakers, the funds for a fenced off leash area would be raised in no time. Once again it appears that people who break the law are getting special treatment by the city. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of having specially designated areas, but until that time comes, please enforce the existing laws.

@Local Parent: While I appreciate your response, you may want to keep in mind that this model of off-leash hours (time and space dependent) is successful in other cities. We are not starting from scratch, but have examples from Wilmington, DE (which, btw, has off-leash hours from dawn to dusk, and the park I've visited is similar to PP, w/o "natural barriers" such as trees), Seattle, and NYC. While I don't live in those places, I have to assume that the public officials there take public safety into account. (I would encourage you to google the rules for off -leash dog areas to see what they are and how they work.) If you look at NYC, you will see that dog bites have gone DOWN since the advent of dog areas, since a well exercised, socialized dog is less likely to play

There are inherent risks in everything. And, let's not put too fine a point on this: but residents of Baltimore City may have higher risks than most.

I've brought this up before, but will say it again. Personally, I don't walk though a field with a softball game in progress. There is a risk involved. I don't imagine that you take you child through one either.

Of course there will be outliers. There will be bad dog owners just as there are bad drivers, bad City residents, and bad parents. Please don't punish responsible dog owners for the actions of a few.

Local parent and taxpayingdogowner - Your comments are purely hypothetical. Take a look at a the actual results of the program that was implemented in New York City:

Annual Reported NYC Dog Bites Before Park Off-leash Hours (1960s): Over 40,000. (source: NYC Dept of Health)

Annual Reported NYC Dog Bites in 2005 after off-leash hours: 3,956, with 86 (2.2%) occurring in the 1,700+ NYC parks. (source: NYC Dept of Health)

Parents, kids, dogs, and dog-owners are all co-existing in NYC with off-leash hours. Well socialized and exercised dogs benefit everyone with less barking, less on-leash aggression, less tendency to become territorial, friendlier behavior towards people and other dogs, and (in NYC) a dramatic decrease in the number of dog bites.

Not sure how you can argue with proven statistics...

I too thought the meeting went well last night with a seemingly overwhelming show of support for off-leash hours and the establishment of a fenced-in dog park. Of course there were a few extremists within that attempted to use as much of the time as possible. I especially enjoyed being told by the one female extremist that MY dog has attacked hers at least twice because it was off-leash. I found that extremely amusing as my dogs have never attacked ANYBODY’s dogs in the park. I also found it quite amusing that she was completely against the establishment of off-leash hours in the park and her continued lecture on how allowing dogs off-leash in the park is dangerous and outright wrong. I see her and her husband with their dog off-leash virtually every day walking down the Linwood edge of the park. I also found the statement about how one lady’s husband has to reconstruct and stitch up children’s and adults’ faces on a daily basis because of dog attacks in Baltimore to quite an embellishment. If these types of attacks were occurring we would be hearing about it in the news as with the child in Baltimore County a couple of years ago. I am not saying that dog bite incidents do not occur, but come on.


I am for off-leash hours in the park but am more interested in the establishment of a fenced-in dog park. However, I think that with the establishment of off-leash hours in designated locations that people with concerns will have the ability to just stay away from the areas during the established times. After all, the park is approximately 144 acres and the proposed off-leash areas are approximately less than an acre. If people with concerns stay away from the area then all should be fine. Honestly, after having lived in the area and been in the park multiple times on a daily basis for 3 years now, I have never seen one dog running from one side of the park to the other or even a substantial distance without its owner. This notion that dogs will just be running to and fro and willy nilly throughout the park is absurd.


I do agree that the process should be one of thought and planning and time should be taken to do so carefully. However, there will never be a 100% satisfaction rate on either side.


Ian – Have you ever exceeded a speed limit or j-walked? Have you ever seen the children playing ball in the streets right next to a “No Ball Playing” sign? These are equivalents to having an off-leash dog in the park I think. It is not as if the city is looking the other way while we are murdering one another in the park. Currently the truth to the lack of enforcement is ability. However, with the passing of the off-leash allowance legislation, the ability for the Park Rangers to enforce laws and write citations is imminent within the next month or so.

I absolutely agree with Pat. The current law is NO off leash dogs. When did it become acceptable to break the law because it didn't fit into your lifestyle? If both PP and the Korean War Memorial were monitored more closely and citations appropriately handed out, we could create a beautiful dog park with the funds raised. I encourage everyone who sees an off leash dog, to report it immediately to parks and rec or call 311. If you saw someone breaking into a home or a car, you'd report that wouldn't you? Having a dog off leash is also breaking the law--at least currently.

BmoreMom - here's hoping you NEVER go over the speed limit, run a red light, or fail to come to a complete stop at a stop sign. All of those actions are knowingly against the law, and put people at risk every day.

The dog park aspect must be brought forward with much more thought and planning than currently exists (although I think the enthusiasm is great). I'm not against a dog park, but the process is concerning. The Patterson Park Dog Park plans are for a different location and the letters of support do not include that new location or design (if that is not the case, they need to update their website). In fact, imo the new location is going to be problematic. In addition, to suggest only $8,000 annual maintenance (again, found on the website) seems completely unreasonable. Is this backed up by Canton dog park or something else? In addition, without a clear plan for maintenance, monitoring and enforcement, how can anyone throw their supprot behind it? The proposal is simply incomplete. We need concrete details, not incomplete and fluid proposals.

Leigh- the statistics you provide show that fear is NOT hypothetical.

Ryan- you are right about off leash dogs being like speeding- unnecessary and everyone does it. The difference is that when someone gets caught speeding they take the ticket and pay it and don't go and complain about how unfair it is that the city won't give them a special street where they can speed legally.

I think it important to distinguish the difference between current off-leash activity, which is illegal, not well enforced and not regulated, and the benefits of a designated off-leash area during certain hours. Once the benefits of the latter are realized and the distinction is made, there should be little reason not to move forward with this plan. More commentary via a local blog.

I was unable to attend the meeting, but have been very interested in the development of the dog park.

It always appeared to me that the dog park was just an after-thought in this discussion, and having missed the meeting it appears I may have been right.

The original article above speaks at length about the off-leash hours, then quickly mentions:

A fenced in dog park is also on the table.

The suggested location is along Baltimore Street on the western end of the park. As proposed, the park would be 20,000 square feet.

Again, an after-thought. Was there anything else?

I am a pediatrician and have seen a great deal of dog bite injuries. Let's put passions aside and take a look at evidence for a moment. For the most part, children with dog bites are bitten by dogs they know (family dogs or dogs of family friends). There are multiple examples of cities where stranger dog bite rates decreased significantly when off leash hours where created in parks (off leash hours are less psychologically restricting for dogs than fenced in areas). Dogs bite when they feel threatened and trapped- they feel more trapped when on a leash or in an enclosed space. I just beg that we be scientific about public policy and include a pediatrician and veterinarian on the committee who will ultimately create the policy. Please refer to Nelsons textbook on pediatrics edition. 18 and page 2928 to support my statements. Thank you. I wish I was there.

taxpayingdogowner - Let's be realistic. There are never going to be zero dog bites. But the enormous decrease in dog bites after off-leash hours were implemented cannot be ignored.

At any rate, you can be clear on one thing - it has been statistically proven that off-leash hours are not going to have the opposite effect and increase the number of dog bites. If you still think that, you are living in a hypothetical paranoid world.

Ellen, yes, I understand that these off-leash parks have worked in other areas and could conceivably work in Baltimore. These other areas have carefully chosen their locations with an eye toward public safety, and the locations make sense. The best comparison is clearly Prospect Park because the population density and demographics (of both people and dogs) are far different in places like Wilmington and Portland than they are in Baltimore.

Prospect Park is three times the size of Patterson Park. Its off-leash hours are very limited (before 10am and after 9pm). They at one point had earlier evening off-leash hours, but these were *eliminated*. Prospect Park's geography is conducive to off-leash areas because it has several interior meadows that are bounded by thick layers of trees that keep dogs in and others out. And just as importantly, Prospect Park has devoted significant resources to enforcement so that dogs are ONLY off-leash in the off-leash area.

If Baltimore is able to enact all of these conditions in Patterson Park, I believe an off-leash area could be safe and that a majority of park users would support it. However, it is not clear that Baltimore has the resources or manpower to do this. There is a recession. Park and Rec's small budget has been cut. Little enforcement exists now, and the budget for park rangers has been cut, so there is no reason to believe they will be able to consistently enforce the law in the way that Prospect Park has. And, they would need to modify the geography create a natural barrier to keep dogs in.

On the issue of dog bites statistically happening less in NYC after the off-leash law: the reasons for this are obvious, and I do not believe it is because of dog behavior. Because of strong enforcement, dogs are now contained in specific places at specific times, and others steer clear of these areas. This could potentially work in Patterson Park if the city is able to create conditions similar to those in Prospect Park, as described in detail above. But just jumping in and hoping for the best without recognizing the legitimate public safety hazards is not a wise approach.

Dog owners will find that they have a strong ally among local parents if they focus on creating a fenced dog park instead of an off-leash area. Working together, these two constituencies would be hard to deny.

@ Sheila, Many thanks for bringing this up. After your post, I did some checking and according to the Humane Society, 80% of dog bites are from a dog known to the child. http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/dog_care/stay_dog_bite_free/teaching_your_child_to_avoid_dog_bites.html

I wonder if the EPFL has a copy of the Nelsons 18th Ed.?

If you'd like to be included in future discussions on this issue, please send an email with your contact info to pattersondogpark(at)gmail(dot)com. We hope to hear from you.

Anybody who breaks ANY law at ANY time should be killed and have their flesh fed ot off leash dogs.

I just noticed that the comparison between pre-off leash and post-off leash dog bites is a comparison between pre-1960s and 2009!

I believe this negates the comparison considerably. To compare pre-1960s NYC with the city today and offer off-leash parks as an explanation is not statistically or sociologically responsible. The demographics of New York have changed dramatically over this period of time, and our understanding of dog behavior and standards for public safety have evolved just as dramatically.

What is the comparison between bites the year before off-leash programs were instituted and the year immediately following? This would be a legitimate comparison.

It is nonetheless good news to see so few overall bites in NYC today with the co-existence of off-leash parks.

so, who will enforce all those rules? police? volunteers? national guard?

ellen is so right

Although 80% of pediatric dog bites may be from known dogs, 20% is still a high number. Despite this, off leash dogs during non off leash hours pose other problems. Some children and grown ups are inherently afraid of dogs or simply don't like them. To have an off leash dog, even a friendly one, approach them is not everyone's cup of tea. Plus, I've seen some dogs barrel over children, either trying to get around them or wanting to play. It probably doesn't cause permanent injury but sure could leave a lasting bad impression of dogs. I'm in favor of either off leash hours or a fenced in dog park--anything with structure. Having your dog off leash now, when there is no designated space or time is rude, inconsiderate, and irresponsible--just like J walking. The difference is, if you get hit by a car out of your own stupidity you have no one else but yourself to blame. And if the driver had been following the speed limit and came to a complete stop, they probably would've had enough time to see J walker. But if a child gets injured, chased or scared--it's absolutely no fault of their own. LEASH YOUR DOGS until we have a space and time for them.

@Local Parent Please explain how the statistics of dog bites presented here is negated because it is the 1960's data?? I just did a quick google search and in 1970, Population of NYC is 7.8 and Dog Population, 500,000. 2009 Estimated (from Times) Population is 8.2, Dog Population, 530,000. NYC Dept of Recs credits off leash play as a major reason for the drastic decline in dog bites (40,000/yr to 4,000/yr) and we had a doctor write on this blog saying the same thing. Who is being "statistically or sociologically responsible" here? I'll side with the doctor and the NYC Dept of Recs and not localparent.

Mike, by demographic differences I did not mean the number of people in NYC but things like the education level of the current population versus that in the 60s.

But far more importantly: if you know anything about 1960s NYC, you know that it was a city run amok. There was violence on the subway, in the parks, in the streets. Look at the statistical changes in violent crime between 1960s NYC and today. It is dramatic, just as much as the changes in dog bites. The commonality between these two sets of statistics has been a change in the overall culture of the city and the methods it uses to enforce its laws. At one point in time, New York decided it would not tolerate small crimes (ie, running through subway turnstiles); it maintains a zero-tolerance policy on petty crimes, which, its leaders argue, has successfully translated into an astounding reduction in violent crime (something Baltimore could learn from). New York even has a crew of employees who do nothing other than circle the city to catch people who do not pick up their dog waste. That is their sole job! This has created a culture that couldn't be more opposite from the culture of the city in the 60s.

The pediatrician raises a valid point about dog bites being more likely to come from dogs that are known to the child, and this is something parents can be educated about that is likely to affect their opinion to some degree. Though she is unlikely to be an expert in urban historical statistical analysis (nor is the NYC Dept of Rec and Parks), and I would take the opinion of an urban social scientist or historian analyzing this data over either of the parties you cite on this particular issue.

Of course it just takes plain logic to deduce that you cannot compare 1960s NYC with today in terms of law breaking of any kind (and its effects, like dog bites--dogs were no doubt running wild just as much as people were) without recognizing that it is part of a complete shift in the culture of that city, not the isolated result of something like off-leash dog parks.

Some one sould contact Lake County Forest Preserve in Illinos for tips on how to run successful dog parks. Sounds like you folks have no clue at all about this subject.

The close to 100% percent resolution that seems good and safe for most involved is a fenced in area. Don't see how you can truly do it otherwise in a public area.

Leigh, not everything is on the news. Dog bites remain a serious public health problem among children. I have included two links for you below. If you look at these papers, these bites are on average 7 cm in length, and 2/3 times NOT done by the family dog, but a strangers. I am a surgeon frequently involved in dog bite repairs at a local trauma center. When you consider a tertiary care center, these are frequent events. Please see some of the links below. Most centers see several severe bites a month. When these are on a child's face they have quite lasting implications.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19276721

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19248942

Local Parent has gone off the deep end. Not only does she deduce that people were less-educated in the 60s in NYC, but that people and dogs were running wild through the city. What a joke.

And she is trying to take the argument in a different direction. Use your logic to answer this, Local Parent - how exactly does a proposal that restricts off-leash dogs to a certain area of the park and certain hours of the day lead to a probability of MORE dog bites? Not seeing it, sorry!

And, although I'm sure your kids are charming, why not just avoid the off-leash area during those hours? As a concerned parent, I would think that would be the most logical thing to do while still accommodating a large group of park users.

Ryan... I'm not saying I haven't broken the law by speeding or j-walking. I can honestly say that I do try to stay within the speed limits set, and use the crosswalks whenever possible. I, nor anyone else, has complained to the city about being given a special section of road for which it is OK to speed. The fact of the matter is, if I were stopped and cited for breaking those laws, I would without complaint pay the fines. That does not mean that I blatantly go out of my way, every day, to break any laws. Your argument is unfounded in reason. The current laws for Baltimore Parks, state that dogs must be on a leash at all times. If you break the law, suck it up...

Anon, these are not deductions; they are facts. Here: Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review in July of 2008 cites "gains in employment, income, and educational attainment" "from 1969 to 1979 and a continued high rate from 1979 to 1999." (along with simultaneous gains in poverty)

I am not saying dogs were running wild through the streets, but that there were surely more of them running illegally off-leash in public parks than there are now, given the changes in law enforcement in the city.

Regarding children, the concern is that, since the proposed off-leash site offers neither natural nor man-made barriers, dogs will occasionally go outside of the site and passers-by will be compromised. People would be happy if they believed the dogs would *stay* in the off leash area 100% of the time, but people are not convinced of this.

I do not, honestly, think there will necessarily be more dog bites with off-leash hours, and I am not saying that--there may well be fewer if this is done right. (Though, I do believe it is very different to have bites because people are breaking the law than bites that occur in the context of a gov't-sanctioned activity (ie, a legal off-leash park).)

My main point is that the interpretation of these statistics that off-leash parks result in dramatic decreases in dog bites does not pass the sniff test. Correlation is not the same as causality, especially when this correlation is accompanied by so many other, related changes.

Really folks, it's pretty simple. If your childrens' safety is a concern then consider this:

1) WITHOUT a designated area for dogs to be off leash, there will inevitably be off leash dogs in *every* area of the park. You cannot change this. It will happen as surely as the sun rises tomorrow. Why? Because having an exercised dog is a responsibility taken seriously by owners who feel their dog must run. It is a need of the citizens of our COMMUNITY. Whether you like it or not, dog owners are part of the community too.

2) WITH a designated off-leash area, dog owners will flock to it and run their dogs there because they don't have to worry about getting ticketed. There really won't be much reason to galavant around the park with an off leash dog when there is an area set up for it. As a dog owner, it's what I would do.

So riddle me this - how is having random dogs off leash *everywhere* in the park more safe than having a designated area that parents can know where is (in order to avoid it)?? People, think. It seems that if safety is really your concern than ANY act reducing the number of off leash dogs showing up in random areas of the park would be a good idea. And ANY motivation for dog owners to congregate in a central location is better. Yes?

Let's all compromise a little here. Dog owners (who are a vast section of our community) would at most get about 1% of the park to exercise their dogs. People and their children are getting the other 99% - How is that a bad deal for the non-dog folk? Seems a little lopsided to me, but I'm okay with that, because I recognize the needs of your children to have baseball fields, and playgrounds, and soccer fields, and swimming pools, and tennis courts...

Oy! this logic--It just takes one of anything, therefore nothing. Your "Whatif" scenarios are counter-productive. Allow me to apply your logic right back at you: Playgrounds are dangerous and they must be eliminated! Each year in the United States, emergency departments treat more than 200,000 children ages 14 and younger for playground-related injuries. * About 45% of playground-related injuries are severe–fractures, internal injuries, concussions, dislocations, and amputations (Tinsworth 2001).
* About 75% of nonfatal injuries related to playground equipment occur on public playgrounds (Tinsworth 2001). Most occur at schools and daycare centers (Phelan 2001).
* Between 1990 and 2000, 147 children ages 14 and younger died from playground-related injuries. Of them, 82 (56%) died from strangulation and 31 (20%) died from falls to the playground surface. Most of these deaths (70%) occurred on home playgrounds (Tinsworth 2001).

They died!!! 14 may be a small number but it is 14 too many! Playgrounds are killing and maiming our children!!!!!!
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Playground-Injuries/playgroundinjuries-factsheet.htm

Many of you are missing the point. Off leash hours, specific times(early morning--lae afternoon-evening), specific areas, stay away and out of areas if you want to avoid dogs. Enforcement is going to be stepped up. The park is big enough for all of us, so let's at least give this a try.

I would like to quickly respond to Surgeon's post. thank you for being involved in this discussion! i took a look at the articles you posted- the 2009 article found that 37% of children were bitten by their family dog but did not comment on the other 63% of childrens relationship with the dog. my teaching in resideny and public health school would lead me to believe that a large proportion of the remaining 63% were bitten by dogs *known* to the family (if not a family dog). could you please comment on your experience with this? thanks! -sheila

When you consider that millions of children are playing on millions (literally) of playgrounds each year--most children will play on a playground at least once per day; many will play 2+ times--the risk is actually quite small, statistically. And thankfully, safety standards for playgrounds have improved significantly in the last decade.

It differs from year to year, but there are more deaths from dog bites each year than from playgrounds. Most of these are deaths of children under 10.

Additionally, the huge difference with playgrounds is that in this case, people are putting *themselves* at risk (or parents are putting their children at risk). In our society, we hold very different standards for self-risk versus risk caused by others (and it is quite notable that most deaths occurred on *home* playgrounds). Smoking causes tremendous morbidity and mortality; we do not outlaw it (or prevent people from smoking around their children at home), but we increasingly prohibit it in public places that victimize bystanders with second-hand smoke. Dogs pose parallel risks (of a different nature and degree) to this; playgrounds don't.

To the other point: Illegal off-leash behavior does not happen because it's a "need" but because the law is not enforced. It is also a contradiction to say it's impossible to enforce leash laws now, but that an off-leash park will be enforced. It takes the same level of manpower, so either both are potentially enforceable or neither are.

Most people are not convinced that if you create an off-leash area, all dog owners will use it. A lot of dog owners indicate that they do not want their dogs playing with other dogs because they do not do well in this situation (but they do want them to run off-leash). The SE area of the park is used widely by dogs, and people are not convinced that all of these people will be willing to travel to the NW section of the park for an off-leash area.

Either way, I completely agree that we need to compromise. Dog owners are a significant group that uses the park, and there is room to make space for them. I simply think it should be done safely and sensibly, which means that there is a natural or man-made barrier to keep dogs in and that there is strict enforcement.

What I am surprised by, and where I see some of you being unreasonable (and not showing a spirit of compromise), is in your apparent failure to recognize the genuine risks that dogs pose to the public. This is not an invention of parents' making, and we don't get very far when you refuse to recognize that this concern has some validity--and that reasonable steps can and should be taken to protect public safety.

I hate to say it, but I think I've revised my opinion that it serves your cause that a minimum of 20% of dog bites/attacks occur from a dog not known to the child.

By definition, nearly 100% of the actual, close interactions between dogs and kids happen to a dog known to the child--whether a family dog or the dog of a friend or whatever. In many cases, this contact is frequent and unsupervised, and of course within this subset, you have kids doing all sorts of things with or to dogs (ie, some kids habitually mistreat dogs; some dogs mistake affection or play between kids as confrontation, etc.) In any case, this is where frequent, direct access and contact between dogs and kids occurs.

And yet, a full ONE in FIVE times, a child is just walking down the street or through the park or whatever the case may be, and a dog that is completely unknown to him or her bites or attacks her. I think that's remarkable frequency for something like that to occur and much higher than I would have expected when I really think about the situation. No doubt in some of these cases the child is deliberately provoking the dog, but I don't think that's probably the majority of the time. Am I missing something?

@ the other Mike
The dog group has been working on this for years, we worked with the Neighborhood groups, the city and even FOPP (we were once a sub-group underneath them). And yes, we worked with the Canton Dog group as well as the Neighborhood Design Center and also made presentations to the Neighborhood Associations (also on the website) to solicit input- that is how we derived our maintenance cost and other features in our former proposal. The new location was proposed by the city over the past couple of months as were the Off Leash hours. The dog group supports any effort to move forward in providing a solution to dogs in Patterson Park to exercise responsibly and we appreciate the city's efforts. If the past proposal costs or location seem unreasonable to you, I'd like to know why and how you would derive what you would think are more reasonable solutions. The Dog group set up the meeting this week to offer everyone a chance to speak. This continues to demonstrate our seriousness and responsibility to the community. Instead of calling everything-not well thought out or problematic-please tell us your reasons why instead of nothing but empty criticism; we are open-minded and are listening.

The bottom line is the City made the statement that the park is a place for everyone and that includes dogs and children. We couldn't agree more. Dog owners have nothing against children. In fact, we think it is great to see families in the park and as our neighbors. We hope they stick around long enough to see their kids grow up in such a diverse environment as we have here in the city and maybe, just maybe those kids may won't a dog as a pet someday--hopefully a stray or from a shelter. The Parks Department also stated that they are committed to making the parks safe for everyone- children and dogs included. Dog owners, and I am sure, parents want the same thing too. The Park's Department has coordinated with the Police Department, the Animal Control, the Health Department and now the community to ensure that happens. The city also outlined that enforcement will be stepped up to ensure that dogs off leash are kept in a specific area and those that are not will be subject to ticketing. This way they can concentrate on other unwanted activities we all know about in the park. By arranging to have this public forum and by statements made by dog owners at the meeting, we have made clear that we want to reach out to the other side and we are eager to demonstrate that this can actually work to the benefit off all park users; four-legged included.

The other Mike -

My problem is that the Dept. of Recs and Parks are not following their established procedures for setting up a dog park. The regs set out by the Department have very specific requirements in the application process. The application submitted by the interest group and the letters of support are for an entirely different location than the one being currently proposed. I also mention that the application was submitted in 2004 and the letters of support are for 2008. Are the letters of support for the old location or the new?

I actually like the location that was proposed. For whatever reason, that site is now not being considered. In addition, the Patterson Place Association was not consulted. Considering this proposed park is being put across the street from their neighborhood, I would think that they would be consulted. In addition, I seriously doubt that the neighbors on Baltimore St. that live across from the park support this. If they have, I would like to see their letters of support as well.

Simple fact of the matter is that the process put in place to get this park is not being followed. The process ensures fair government and input.

Local Parent - the statistics you are throwing around are EXHAUSTING. "And yet, a full ONE in FIVE times, a child is just walking down the street or through the park or whatever the case may be, and a dog that is completely unknown to him or her bites or attacks her." Where do you even come up with this stuff? And no, I won't believe every statistic you link to on the internet.

The bottom line is, if you are responsible parent, ASK before you let your kid pet a strange dog, don't leave your kid unattended with any dog, and avoid areas where dogs are playing off leash (just as you would avoid a biker in the park, a softball game, etc). Dogs aren't just going to chase across an open space to come up and attack your child. Be realistic here.

We are all entitled to enjoy recreational activities in the park. Your kids have a playground, my 'furbaby' wants a designated space as well. While a fenced area is preferable, in the meantime these off-leash hours are a viable option that are PROVEN to work on many other cities. You can throw out as many statistics and hypothetical scenarios as you want - the bottom line is that it is working in other cities and it can work in Baltimore too. We just need common sense on both sides of the 'fence' - parents who monitor their kids, and dogs owners who monitor their dogs.

There are several off-leash dog parks, both fenced and unfenced, in Arlington VA. Come down and we'll show you how it's done. I, and my dog Hepburn, suggest in particular a trip to Shirlington Dog Exercise Area (Doggy Beach).