Leash Law and Dogs at Parks

Thank you for this ordinance. The suggestion that there only a limited number of aggressive dogs in limited areas of the city is untrue. We have experienced these issues at Spring Hill Park, where an owner made it clear that he wasn’t going to call his dog back even though it was getting in my boys’ faces. I did my best to shield them from it, but do not make it a point to go back with the fear of them getting bitten or worse.
Similarly, in another instance, a man had his dog running through the park, all the while not realizing that my boys were patiently waiting for him to vacate the area so they could play with the soccer nets that he was occupying. I do not feel comfortable sending the boys back to the parks to utilize these facilities because of the issues with the dogs.
Finally, to the person that suggested that soccer fields be used for places for dogs to run. I do not want to step in the poop that will be left behind (or worse).

Congratulations to Minnetonka City policymakers and staff for notable improvements in the condition and maintenance of Minnetonka’s exemplary Parks,Trails and Community Preserve System in recent years.

In similar spirit, it is appropriate to review and update ordinances governing dog leashing/leash-free practices in our Parks. Our increasingly attractive Parks will entice more public usage and thus, more interface between the general public (including student study groups) and dogs/ dog owners. Clear rules of expected behavior are necessary.

Included in the mix of plans and rules should be the important resource of fenced dog parks- one for big dogs another for small dogs- each of generous size and easily accessible for dog owners. The example provided by Three Rivers Park at Fish Lake is relevant.

Fenced dog parks would provide a convenient option for dog owners wishing to avoid direct contact with walkers or study groups. Indeed, some dog owners might use the fenced dog park to avoid the potential liability risk if their dog were to cause accidental injury to walkers.

Fenced options are an important part of long range planning for full use and enjoyment of our wonderful Park Trails and Community Trails System.

Respectfully,

Jim H.

I agree with the dog leash ordinances proposed by the city. It isn’t overreach to find ways where all individuals, dog owner-walkers and walkers, can enjoy the trails in the many beautiful parks within the Minnetonka Parks system. The current ordinance is difficult to enforce because of the lack of clarity. It causes frustration because everyone has a different view of what the current ordinance means.

These proposed ordinances respect the restoration efforts in all parks, not just Purgatory. These proposed ordinances respect that all have the privilege to enjoy our beautiful parks. The individuals in favor of these ordinances are not anti-dog. My husband and I have become friends with dog owners while walking the trails. It’s easy to make friends when the dogs are leashed and can be safely approached. Some individuals have had bad experiences with dogs that follow them throughout their lives. That’s an unfortunate truth. Some people have balance issues where dogs running by them or bumping them is a risk.

All individuals have a voice worth being heard. We might have different preferences, but it will serve us best if we try to understand the preferences and their origination.

I recognize these ordinances will change long-held patterns of use, especially for Purgatory Park. Change is difficult. That doesn’t mean change is automatically bad or wrong.

I believe off-leash areas will be most successful in designated off-leash fenced areas. I believe the fenced areas should be of significant size so the dogs have room to run. I also believe there should be a separate off-leash area for smaller dogs if owners determine they don’t want to mix with the larger dogs.

Everyone wants to feel safe in our parks. We all want to explore the beauty of Purgatory and we all want to feel part of a community that appreciates being in nature, whether with a dog or not. I know we can find a way forward if we’re all willing to actually hear and begin to understand the “boundaries” we have set in our own minds. Decisions made will affect all Minnetonka Parks and all people who enjoy our parks.
MaryH

I agree with the proposed changes to the ordinances. Even under the best voice command scenario, dogs are liable to act in unpredictable ways, particularly when a runner or bicyclist is moving through an area and there happens to also be an off-leash dog in that area. The consequences for a bicyclist can be particularly catastrophic, and it's not a great situation for anyone to have a dog charging toward them.

TLDR: strongly against off leash areas in public parks & I am a dog owner.

It is the duty of the city and the park system to keeping the integrity of our natural areas and habitats. Our public spaces should also be welcoming to ALL and not to just dog owners. I very much enjoy Purgatory Park for its natural spaces, to relax in nature, and go on hikes with my child. Recently, there has been a huge up-tick in off leash dogs and my head is on a swivel for my childs safety from dogs as they are running wild. We have had negative encounters with dogs barking at him and aggressively approaching us, and then the dogs that are running have almost plowed him over several times... it's no longer a safe space for my family to enjoy. My family should feel welcomed & safe there; I am a tax payer and these are my public spaces too! Any one who goes there will witness the ecological damage dogs are doing to the native habitat. What's going to happen to the animals that live there?! There are DOG PARKS... Those in favor need to switch their energy to adding more fenced in dog parks vs this short sighted change that benefits few and hurts many.

The ecological damage in progress will last decades if this becomes an official change, as an example look to what happened at Elk Meadow Off Leash Dog Park in Denver, CO.

I feel VERY strongly that dogs should be on a leash when walking in the neighborhood. When out for a walk, I have encountered people who have their dog off-leash. The dog runs up to me wagging its tail and tries to jump up on me. Not only does this frighten me but my spouse is highly allergic to dog hair and I don't want to get it on my clothing. Another time I was walking by a house and the dog ran out into the street barking and growling at me. The woman who owns the dog didn't do anything about it until I started yelling at the dog -- and then she looked at me as though I was to blame.
I am so tired of people who have not trained their dogs properly and let them run rampant.

These proposed changes are very much needed and seem respectful of all our citizens. Dogs must be controlled within Minnetonka city limits for the safety of people, other dogs, and wildlife, and the upkeep of yards and city property. I agree with others who have said: It's dangerous and frightening to be jumped on/at while walking, running and on bike -- I, too, have experienced all of these. And, I hope that these changes will also help to eliminate the random piles of dog droppings that I see in my yard, on our streets and in our parks. I am so glad Minnetonka is taking this seriously. This is about safety, health, hygiene and keeping up our public parks and properties. Thank you!

I'm sure this will go as it has in the past, and you'll receive aggressive pushback from every one of the small but highly organized group of off-leash dog owners who treat Big Willow, Purgatory and Jidana like their backyards. But for what it's worth: I am a dog owner, I strongly support these changes, and for the sake of families with small children and those of us who would like to walk leashed dogs in the natural parks, I hope they pass. The current regulations negatively impact far more people in our community than they benefit.

I have given up trying to walk my leashed dog in these parks because we are so often approached by off-leash dogs on the trails. These large dogs are almost always well ahead of their owners and not under voice command. Before I stopped using the parks, when I wanted to walk in Big Willow with my kids to observe nature, we would leave our dog at home. We have been approached by an aggressive dog running at top speed through the woods, its owner well behind (and wearing earbuds fwiw). He yelled at me when I asked him to control his dog, saying that it was allowed and I clearly "don't like animals." I hope I don't have to explain how absurd it is for a dog owner and nature lover to receive this treatment from a man whose dog is rampaging unchecked through a park chasing wildlife.

Dog parks exist. Backyards exist too. Some of us take these things into account before we become dog owners. It is far past time for Minnetonka to get in line with the rest of the Twin Cities on this public safety issue.

I am not sure why things need to be made more difficult. So many of our parks are under used. If there isnt anyone using the park, why cant i take my dog there to play catch and get some running in? A tired dog is a happy dog! I love walking my dog to the park and letting her run through the woods. We stay away from open park areas and playgrounds and if another person or dog walker comes along, we bring her into heelor leash her. Its unfortunate that a few can spoil it for all. My dog also can walk without a leash and be on voice command. This was a necessity for use as i have a bad back. Those people that dont have control should walk their dogs on leash, but dont punish the rest of us that have worked to make sure our dogs obey.
Purgatory was one nice area that was easy to take the dog to. Now you want to take that away or downsize it. Our dogs are not allowed on the main trail off leash, maybe walkers shouldn't be allowed in the off leash areas? I also think that people should know their dog. Does it belong in an off leash area with other dogs if it is not properly socialized? Again, dont punish all for the inability of some to control their pets. I understand a "dog at large" ordinance, especially since i have seen reports of some dog attacks, but that sounds like more of an owner issue. If the dog is under control with the owner, why do we need to add restrictions? Please dont take away our park access.
Thanks.

This is disappointing. I was recently in the UK and it is so dog-friendly compared to here. Everywhere you went dogs were allowed. Lots of trails and parks allowed dogs to be off leash and they didn't even need to heel. They were running all over the place having a great time. There was the occasional area where they required them to be on leash (near traffic) but for the most part it was off. Everybody's dogs interacted with each other and in the daily walks I had never once saw an altercation. Does their freedom make them behave better??

The proposed ordinance is fair and much needed. Dogs should be controlled within city limits for the sake of people, other dogs, wildlife, yards and city property. It's dangerous and frightening to be jumped on and at while walking, running and on bike - all my experiences. I appreciate the city's consideration.

I support these amendments. I live right next to Reich Park and the number of dogs that are unleashed is getting out of control. Not all dogs are okay with other dogs approaching them. And I agree with others, those people that have unleashed dogs do not always have their dogs under control by voice command. Please, please pass this amendment. Thank you.

100% support this ordinance and the previous comment about many owners being delusional about the temprement of their dogs. It shouldn't be my responsibility to pick my dog up 3-5 times a walk because you can't control yours. This is long, long overdue.

I am against this ordinance. I am incredibly disappointed in this thinly veiled move by the city to get the dogs out of purgatory. Over the last 6 months there were multiple meetings at city hall about this. The amazing off-leash community at purgatory explained why having this space is so important to the dogs, and themselves. Supporters of Purgatory spent hours and hours of thier time listing these reasons. I don’t have time to repost them now but maybe I will try to post one a day. At all of the meetings the support for off-leash was overwhelming. There are only a handful of loud anti-dog people that clearly have the ear of the city. There reasons included “dogs spreading buckthorn” and feeling “uncomfortable” around dogs. Because of the massive support for off-leash expressed at these meetings, and the weak opposing views, the city could not get away with taking away off leash during the purgatory park planning. Instead, just a month later, they are trying to pull a city wide ordinance change in an attempt to dilute the support that purgatory has for off-leash. I get it, the ordinance sounds reasonable for people who don’t have dogs or have a dog that an hour or two a day of leash walking works for them and the dog. As an owner of a hunting breed, I will challenge any individual to tire out my dog mentally and physically on a leashed walk. And for those who are thinking “the city said they are considering designated areas”. Based on the abhorrent bias with getting dogs out of purgator I have seen in the months leading up to this, I can confidently say that the city wants to put in a fenced in area or an area that is inadequately small for off-leash. City of Minnetonka, the people have already spoken. Leave purgatory alone.

I support both ordinances...I think they will both make our community and parks safer.

I'm completely in favor of these two measures, and I'm glad to see that Minnetonka is finally catching up to the rest of the Twin Cities. Too many dog owners are delusional about their dog's temperament and level of training, and I learned that the hard way when my dog was attacked by two off-leash dogs earlier this year. These two dogs took one second to look at my dog before attacking her and couldn't be brought under control by the owner after they launched their attack. The dogs' owner still swears that his dogs are not aggressive at all, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

These ordinances also cover situations in which dog owners are able to demonstrate that their dogs can be recalled--thus meeting the requirements of the existing "at large" ordinance--but choose not to recall their dogs. I've encountered too many dog owners who refuse to recall their dog because--as they say--their dog is friendly. Never mind that I don't want their dog to approach me and have repeatedly explained that to the owner. It's often much easier to stay out of a dog's reach when they're limited to a six-foot radius.

Finally, to respond to all the calls to simply enforce the existing ordinances I would add that it's very difficult to explain to the police where a dog and owner pair have headed on a walking trail when you can't rely on street names to give directions. Saying "they headed east and could've gone in about three different directions based on which split in the path they took" doesn't really give the police or whoever's responding to the call enough information to track down an offender. Enforcement of the existing ordinances doesn't seem feasible.

This is bad. We have enough ordinances to control dogs, we don't need more.

I completely disagree with these overzealous proposed ordinances. The current ordinances are adequate. There is no reason to punish everyone for what a few people and their pets do. I am very certain that the people currently breaking the rules will continue to do so, while law abiding citizens suffer with this ridiculous oversight. I have gone on plenty of walks in numerous parks and trails and have not encountered any problematic animals. This proposal sounds like it’s stemming from negative isolated incidents that should have been appropriately addressed with the pet owners, or perhaps from people who just dislike dogs.

I support the proposed leash requirement amendments.
Dogs must be on leash at all time. The only time dogs may be off leash is while in the owner’s yard under the owner’s control. I do now want to be chased by dogs when I am out walking or biking. I do not want children to have to be chased or bitten by dogs.
It is the responsibility of the city to keep everyone safe. Unleashed dogs are a danger to every citizen except the owner.
I have had many dogs jump up on me when not leashed, especially in Purgatory park, and my fear is unbearable. I understand some people totally love their dogs, but with thousands of people in this community it is negligent for the city not to force sanctions on those who do not leash their dogs.
I already see plenty of dog poop not put in the trash by owners. People who break rules must be punished. Enforcement needs to be stepped up.
Dogs should only be on a leash when not in their owner’s yard and under the owner’s total control.
We must do everything to keep all citizens safe from other people’s pets.

I definitely support these regulations. My wife and I live adjacent to a park, and we don't even walk in the park anymore due to the unpredictable loose dogs that are often present. It is also our observation that a significant percentage of loose dogs are not under voice command. We often have loose dogs barreling through the yard, often with the person showing up minutes later with no possibility of knowing what the dog is doing, or where it is defecating. I do fully support the creation of a area in parks where dogs can run loose, when the area is not adjacent to private property if the area is not fenced. Thank you to the city council for your consideration of this issue.