Ithaca e-Conference
Postings are archived at the IthacaConference Google GroupWeek One (Feb. 15 - Feb. 21): Founding and Managing Dog Parks: Obstacles, pitfalls, opportunities, and success stories.
In-House Squabbles
In my opening remarks I noted, speaking about the Ithaca dog park movement, that "the biggest problem we have faced is vicious squabbling among the dog-park activists." Here are a few general observations on that subject:
- One reason dog park activists seem disposed to cross swords is that they feel a need to assert their dominance -- whether or not it is challenged. I suspect this is because we who have been working on projects longer and harder than others, contributing our time and energy without remuneration and often without visible payback in terms of achieving our agenda, feel underappreciated -- especially by the newbies, who have no idea on whose shoulder's they stand.
- Working in the dark, without a reliable roadmap that is guaranteed to produce the desired results, we make strategic decisions based on personal taste; then, over a long period of time when it is not clear whether our strategy will work, we must defend them against divergent and contrary plans. Worst of all, when we achieve success, it may not be absolutely clear that we were right all along. I believe that the way to avoid this problem is to espouse a multi-pronged approach, one that embraces political hobnobbing and brown-nosing, cage-bar rattling, demonstrations of civic responsibility, passion and forebearance. One that focuses on municipal authorities, pertinent non-profits, commercial interests, the media, grass-roots evangelism, and pointy-headed academia. Letters, petitions, marches, persistence in the face of ticketing, fund-raising, speaking out at municipal meetings, and shmoozing. None of us can manage all these prongs, and we should be glad to have among us those who will hangle prongs that we wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pooper -scooper.
- For the most part we rely on e-mail. Because e-mail is so flat (being especially impervious to facetiousness) and also so slow compared to face-to-face conversation, it behooves us to express ourselves with circumspection. Rather than offer one's version of dogpark-dogma-"period!", we should remember that we are dealing with a wide range of circumstances and experiences and stick to formulations such as "I feel that," "In my experience," "Wouldn't you agree..."
Incorporation
A second obstacle is the non-profit framework. Setting up a non-profit involves a huge expenditure of time and energy, even if the incorporating papers are done pro-bono. The formulation of by-laws can enmire a group for months. Finding the right balance of power between the directors (who do most of the work) and the apathetic membership (who are needed for the body count, and who must be corralled into letter-writing campaigns, but cannot be relied on to know what is really the best strategy); deciding what rules to implement should the dogpark ever become a reality; establishing procedures for dealing with dog-owners behaving badly: these and other quagmires can completely derail the most carefully crafted multi-prong agenda. Then, once the non-profit is underway, the decision-making procedures and focus on bottom-line (not to mention legal exposure) tend to drag on strategic creativity.
Fencing
Again on the subject of obstacles: fencing. If a fence is needed, that can be the single greatest expense in establishing a dog-park. Those who oppose the d-p may argue that a fence would degrade the physical beauty of the site. Next there are questions of subdivision: small-dog (how small?), large-dog, and (as Bill Zardus advises), cooling-off pen? Single or double gate? And then, who gets in? Only members with pass-cards? Temporary passes for transients? Professional dog-walkers? And who's going to keep the gate, check passes, refuse entry to the banned, the multi-dogged, the underage?
Rules
Some people argue that only dogs under absolute voice control should have access. Then what about young dogs (who really need the exercise) and adopted dogs -- who may have had neglected educations, but now need to catch up. Do we admit only dues-paying locals? What about tourists and the whole dog-based-tourism-enhances-local-economy argument? And on and on -- including the bitch-in-heat issue. Once we get into rule-making, the tendency is to think of as many proscriptons as possible -- sometimes I think we are competing to show how much more experience we have than anybody else with dogs and dog-based-conflict, rather than trying to make the best possible public facility. My suggestion is that we not try to hammer out a list of rules at this conference. Instead, if and when an organization comes out of this event, we choose a committee to fight it out in private, and then submit it to a general vote. I would hope that our list -- or lists -- will be tentative, non-dogmatic, and flexible enough to be adapted to a diversity of off-leash recreational areas.
The leashed
Another obstacle: how to recruit to the dogpark campaign those dog-owners that are not a priori committed to off-leash education. One suggestion was to rope them into public dog-based events of a broader nature and then sell them on off-leash recreation.
Need for a national organization
The simple complexity of d-p organization campaigns is itself an obstacle. MARDOG guru Alison Deeb emphasizes the importance of mentoring and fostering other campaigns once your initial success is achieved, and she underlines the potential value of a national organization that would expedite the efforts all those fledgling dog owner groups.
One particular in which the d-p organization could help would be in providing authoritative information regarding the issue of legal exposure and insurance, especially since that red herring is the argument that is most often raised as an obstacle against d-p's.
