Strengths And Weaknesses Of A Dog Park

I agree with the idea for a dog park, not only because i am a dog person myself, but i belive that dogs should have an area for themselves and their owner. It is true that most apartments do not have a large area for dogs to run around and exercise their bodies, a dog park would greatly solve that dilema and there are as more strengths than there are weaknesses. To start us off, a dog park will benefit mans best friend, not only can a large open area improve their health but also their social life. For example there will be a variety of dogs to interact with and according to "A Dog Park Benefits All" in paragraph 2 it states "If a dog doesn't learn to get along with other dogs, it may attack a strange dog or a person." and that is correct

When "No Dogs for Muscatine" showed their counter arguments as much as i dont like the blog post it did bring up a good point. First of all in paragragh 5 it read "This means that if a dog attacks another dog or a person in a dog park, the victim can rightfully sue both the dog's owner and the city for not enforcing the law." it wouldnt be good for the owner to have to be in trouble because of the dog but it could also be prevented if the dog was trained or provoked. But it could also be unnessecary for their taxpayer argument "It would be a burden for taxpayers and a lawsuit waiting to happen." as far as i know someone's taxed go directly to it regardless if they want to or not. On an unrelated note they state "However, I'm not about to suggest that Muscatine taxpayers fund a public catnip garden!" because it does not have any relation to why there cannot be a dog park, cats and dogs are not related, it would be like comparing a child to an adult. To end my essay, a dog park Will still be great for dogs and most likely not affect any human unless its someone that does not like them. Also it will have a place for a city and its furry four legged