dogs-in-parks strategy
Looking for ideas? Here are six principles currently absent from the City's draft policy which it would be worth communicating to the City now, before they finalize it.
Read the principles below, or download them in a PDF file here.
- better socialized dogs;
- crime deterrence and prevention at times when parks are otherwise deserted; and
- a valuable opportunity for neighbourly interaction.
The policy should recognize the positive contributions off-leash areas make to our neighbourhoods, and require City decision-makers to take these contributions into account when administering the policy.
As currently drafted, the City's document is a catalogue of problems and supposed incompatibilities. It contains virtually no mention of the many social benefits of dogs in parks. This is a serious defect in a document that is supposed to be a framework for decisions on off-leash access going forward.
Do not impose collective liability or devolve on citizens the responsibility for park maintenance and enforcement.
Local groups, where they exist, can be involved in measures of education and persuasion. Dog owners can be encouraged to show pride in their park and to participate in clean-up days, etc. (like all other users).
However, dog owners should not be made responsible for enforcing the park rules against other users, maintaining the park, and raising funds for infrastructure, as the price of having an off-leash area in their neighbourhood park.
The City's draft policy would require local dog owners to organize into a group and apply for a collective permit for an off-leash area. The permit would be conditional on dog owners effectively enforcing the park rules and maintaining the off-leash area, and on their assuming as-yet unspecified additional responsibilities.
Existing off-leash areas would not be "grandparented.� The City plans to �re-evaluate� all existing off-leash areas, bringing them under the new system rather than relying on �outdated or historic practices� (p. 13).
A share of the Parks budget should be allocated to maintenance and the provision of amenities in off-leash areas, including but not limited to signage about off-leash rules and owner responsibilities.
The policy suggests that fencing or other requirements might be a condition for having an off-leash area, but it emphasizes that no tax money will be made available to meet these requirements.
The City should not impose infrastructure requirements for off-leash areas (e.g., fencing) unless it provides resources to meet those requirements.
Yet, there are hundreds of thousands of dog-owning households, and sound public policy reasons for ensuring that owners can exercise their dogs in their own neighbourhoods.
Toronto should set a target of 80 neighbourhood off-leash areas within a reasonable timeframe, say 2010. The number doesn't have to be 80, of course. The point is that one-tenth as many neighbourhood off-leash areas as playgrounds is not aiming too high.
The draft policy recognizes that existing off-leash areas are "overcrowded," but it establishes no target. Moreover, the location criteria spelled out in the policy are in essence a long, vague list of "exclusions" which seem designed to ensure that priority will be given to other uses, with off-leash areas being located only in spaces that no one else wants.