1. I think some of the stated reasons for creating a dog park in Reinbeck by Reinbeck's Park Board are more assumptions than fact.
a. Perhaps 40% of the population in Reinbeck do have dogs but how many of that 40% will use the dog park?
b. Why would we want other communities to bring their dogs to our dog park? These dogs would tend to bark and leave their wastes in the enclosed area. If the board thinks all people will collect their dog's waste, they haven't observed the practices of many of those that currently walk their dogs.
c. Stating that dogs will bark less in their home area because they have had a chance to use the dog park is an opinion - not a fact.
d. No one should ever believe that a city dog park will enhance the community to the extent it brings people to live in our town. That logic was used when the swimming pool was built and I did not believe it then and do not find it any more believable now. Less than expected pool attendance documents this as fiction.
2. Are the citizens of Reinbeck willing to pay, or should they pay, for the installation of a fence to enclose the dog park AND maintain the park when likely less than 40% of the citizens will benefit from this expenditure. I, for one, think we can find better uses for our park board's limited budget.
3. If those that will use the dog park truly feel the need for the park, let them raise the funds for installation and maintenance just as the booster club does in many cases for its interests.
4. Dogs are not people as some dog owners would have the world believe. They do have their place in our society, but that place must be controlled by the owner in a manner that does not interfere with other's rights and life style. We already have too many barking dogs in our town that are uncontrolled by their owners. There is no logical reason to encourage more of this by bringing more dogs to Reinbeck to use this proposed dog park.
I happen to enjoy dogs and cats (although I am allergic to cats) but feel we have gone much too far already in expecting the world to accommodate these pets. If you can't provide proper control of your pet, meaning keeping them on a leash, or containing them in your house, or yard without barking, or the stink of uncollected waste, then perhaps you should consider not having a dog or cat. Why should those of us who do not have these pets, be forced to contend with pet owner's preferences that tend to abuse our rights?
Reinbeck needs to enforce the laws already on the books first regarding pets. Once that is done to everyone's satisfaction, then we can take the next step, which may be a dog park.
Ray Rannfeldt, Reinbeck