At last week's City Council meeting plans for four new off-leash areas were unanimously approved. The memo attached (PDF) to that resolution lays out the detailed plan including suggested fee structure.
The fee structure is on page 2 of the PDF. The rates are variable depending on two major factors 1) Swift Run only or all A2 off-leash areas; 2) Spayed/Neutered or intact.
For Swift Run only the rates are: $50 intact or $35 spayed/neutered
For all off-leash areas: $60 intact or $45 spayed/neutered
Those are rates for a single dog. Additional dogs will be charged as follows:
Swift Run only: $25/$15
All areas: $10/$5
So for example I have two fixed dogs and will be buying a permit for all city areas. That will be $45 for the first plus $5 for the second bringing my total to $50 annually.
As I understand it, the permitting will be handled through the city clerk's office and will require proof of vaccination, proper registration, and a signed agreement to follow off-leash area rules. A tag will be issued to each dog to serve as its permit and should be worn whenever in an off-leash area.
This is an interesting fee structure. It is about in the middle of what we have paid elsewhere to use public off-leash areas, those ranging from free to a little over $100 for two dogs. As I've said before, I'm in favor of a nominal fee to manage vaccination and safety concerns as long as dog owners are not being asked to pay all of the support costs in addition to the property taxes we already pay; dog runs should be managed just like other facilities. I would of course like to see these fees a little bit lower, but I think they are reasonable and from my discussions with Parks staff I don't believe that we are being asked to provide the bulk of operating costs.
The structuring of these fees around whether a dog is fixed or not is an interesting thing that I haven't seen elsewhere. I originally thought that it was a response to liability concerns - some parks do not allow unfixed males or females in heat inside at all. But what I have been told is that this is a response to requests by the Humane Society to encourage people to spay or neuter their dogs.
I know that will frustrate some people and I'm not honestly sure how effective it will be. Will someone who is not inclined to fix their dog decide to do so to save $15? I honestly can't say. At the risk of alienating some people though, I'll say that I think it's a good intent and fairly progressive for a city to encourage people to help reduce the stray population by giving a break to animals that have been spayed or neutered.
Whatever your position on that issue, it looks like this will be our fee structure for the first year of decriminalized off-leash play. The fee structure will be up for review annually and Parks staff have told me that they view this as very flexible in the coming years. Once this is in the works, you should feel free to offer constructive criticism. It sounds like the city will be quite receptive to suggestions.
NB - there is language in the memo I linked to above that suggests that hardship scholarships will be available for people who want to buy permits but cannot afford them. I don't know any details about that, but apparently they will be available.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I find the higher permit fee for unaltered dogs to be somewhat obnoxious. Spaying/neutering is a good cause to promote, but how is the difference in cost justified? Is it actually more expensive to maintain the dog park if unaltered dogs are permitted? There are many owners of unaltered dogs who are completely responsible about their dogs' reproduction. Why are they being penalized?
(n.b., My own dog is spayed, so the direct impact on me is zero.)
I'm wondering more about the enforcement of the dog park permits. From reading the proposals it does not sound like there are plans to have parks staff onsite. So, as a responsible dog owner does it now become my duty to police the other dogs at the park?
Also, I was reading on the proposed rules that there are to be no dog treats in the dog park, yet later on in the proposal it allows for groups to purchase agility or other equipment in the future. How are you supposed to train a dog without the use of treats as my dogs are certainly not always motivated by "good boy"? My hope would have been that the dog park would be a good area to work on commands in an unfamiliar environment, yet without treats it would be difficult, and then again you get back to who will enforce the rules?
Julie -
In terms of enforcement, I know that the city is looking to set up a volunteer group of people from Canine Social Club etc to monitor the parks in the early phases, at least during the busy times. In other places we have lived, self-policing has generally been the rule. That is definitely an imperfect solution and some folks get by without paying. But usually when a new dog comes without a tag, somebody will approach them and let them know where they can get one and that it's a rule.
The only times I've ever seen outright enforcement have been cases where an individual came repeatedly without getting a tag or an untagged dog was causing a problem. In those cases the person was told that they needed a permit and couldn't legally use the park without one. If they didn't get one then a park ranger or city police officer could write a ticket.
The other major advantage of a pay permit is that they can be revoked from people who cause repeated problems. In St Louis a permit also came with a code that had to be punched into the gate of the dog park. That was very effective in reducing unpermitted access.
I don't know how serious they will be about the treats thing. I imagine that will be up to the culture that develops among the dog park users. Restrictions on people food have been in place at almost every dog park that I have visited. I once saw someone bring a bag of McDonalds food into a dog park in Illinois and doggy heck really broke loose.
I think the rule about treats is meant to keep dogs from fighting over food. I've seen this be a problem before, especially where someone brings good treats and expects all other dogs to leave them alone. Like most things though, it has been my experience that if it is done with some discreteness and the bearer of yummies understands that they will have a lot of friends, then this rule is usually overlooked.
If agility areas are set up, I assume they will be separated from the main play area (this is the way at Paw Run if you've been up there) which would make the treat issue less of a worry anyway, perhaps there will be a treating and no-treating section.
These have been my experiences at parks in other cities and states. I don't really know a lot about what the plans are here, I think the city is trying to learn as we go and I'm sure that much will change in the first year.
Bob -
I'm not sure what the costs and stats are on allowing unaltered dogs. I do know that many dog parks don't allow them at all for fears of aggression and increased liability. That is why I originally assumed that this fee structure was meant to cover liability insurance or some such.
But I agree, while I think it's a good cause, I'm not sure that there will be any practical effect to this fee structure. I seriously doubt that anybody will decide to have a dog fixed to save $15 on a dog park permit. The surgery costs more than that and most people who don't do it are thinking about things other than money any way.
All that said though, I think this is a classic example of framing in tax issues. You ask why people with intact dogs are being penalized, but the city would probably suggest that spayed/neutered animal owners are being given a break. It's the old incentive vs penalty language problem.
Bob -- you use the word obnoxious to describe city policy -- perhaps better would be "disingenous." I think that it really goes back to liability with unfixed males causing more probs and them not wanting to ban them outright....if they really wanted to be "obnoxious" the fee structure would be much more marked with perhaps the cost difference being $50 at least, not a mere $15 or whatever it is.
As for self-policing. In good ol st. louis, the regulars (those who were often there for an hour ever day, would do a rock paper scissors to find out who wanted to be the "park nazi" for the day. Then that person would have to go pet the dog and look for the green bone on the collar provided by the permitting office, if the tag wasn't insight the offender was told about the rule, usually let play for the day, and if they returned without the tag and people noticed, kindly asked to leave....of course this was before the key-code gate lock system was instituted.
If there really is a higher liability cost associated with unaltered males, then I'm fine with a higher permit cost. And if that's really the reason that the city wants the different fee for altered and unalter dogs, then I have no beef. I just think that "we're charging more/less for unaltered/altered dog because the Humane Society wants to promote spaying and neutering" is not a good reason.
Point taken with regard to framing. I assume that most dogs that use the park will be spayed or neutered, and thus unaltered dogs would be the exception, which would make the fee structure seem more like a penalty to owners of unaltered dogs. Of course, I may be completely wrong.
As the owner of two intact dogs, I'm just glad they're allowing them in the parks. There are so many places where non-neutered dogs are simply not allowed, which is annoying because even if I had them neutered now, their actual behavior wouldn't change anymore.
Post a Comment