No Dog Park For Muscatine Summary

486 Words1 Page

The passages "A Dog Park Benefits All" and 'No Dog Park for Muscatine" both have very reasonable points on whether or not there should be a dog park in Muscatine, but one author clearly has the dogs in mind while the other has the taxpayers in mind. I believe the two authors can find a middle ground with the deicision. Instead of a whole park dedicated to dogs, maybe opening a dog center would be more ideal. A large indoor facility for dogs to exercise and socialize in would solve the majority of most of the issues listed in "No Dog Park for Muscatine"; taxpayer money, legal issues, and disturbing concerns.

In the passage against the dog park in the first paragraph, the author mentions a dog park being a burden for taxpayers. Rather than not building a dog park, a dog facility should be built. It could be an indoor building with fake grass and obsticles. It would be the size of the average dog shelter, there could be a small fee at entry per dog, and the only employees necessary would be custodial or administration workers. The cost to establish the facility would be similar to the the cost of the dog park, but since there would be a small fee to enter the facility, tax payers would not be burdened continuously. …show more content…

When dogs attack people or other dogs at dog parks, it's because rules aren't very enforced. The dog park's visitors in my town have had numerous encounters with the police. A dog facility would solve this issue with a simple legal form that patrons would sign upon registration at the facility. For example, the form would firmly state "ABC Dog Facility is not liable for any injuries that take place" the same way businesses post a sign in their parking lot about theft or damage. As far controlling attacks between dogs, there would be sections for large, medium, and small

Open Document