People with multiple small children but no dog go to a dog park ....

[Fear_Itself]

@even_sven

Maybe I should have said “control” rather than “direct control.” If you cannot prevent your dog from acting aggressive towards whatever happens to be in the park at the time- be it a fence post, dog or human- then it doesn’t get to be off leash. And if something enters the area that may provoke aggression, it’s the owners job to make sure that doesn’t happen, not the targets job to leave.

So, dog owners must control their dogs, but parents don’t have to control their kids? Kids who provoke dogs should be removed as well.

[Malthus]

@SciFiSam

I honestly don’t understand why they’d call it a dog park if it’s actually a general use park, like you’re saying now. It doesn’t seem to fit any of the criteria of a dog park, in that it’s not primarily for dogs. Dogs are usually allowed in parks - they’re usually barred from some fenced-off bits with kids’ play equipment, and you get the occasional very small park that bars dogs altogether, but generally dogs are allowed in parks, so why is this park that dogs are allowed in called a “dog park?” It’s just what I’d call “a park.”

You might as well call it an “old people’s park,” then be astonished when people expect the park to be specifically for old people rather than just a park old people go to, like they do to parks everywhere.

If that’s your main experience of “dog parks” then I can see why you’d be confused, but it’s an odd one.

It’s like cognitive dissonance at work - you honestly don’t understand how it is even possible to have a fenced off, off-leash section of a park that is both for dogs and general use, and call it a “dog park”?

The name is pretty obvious - it differentiates the part of the park that is fenced off and in which dogs are allowed off-leash.

I would be pretty astonished to find an “old people’s park” in which non-old people were excluded, since I’ve never heard of such a thing.

[Malthus]

@doreen

I kind of miss the days when people didn’t think the fact that there’s no rule against doing something meant it was OK to do it even if it meant it couldn’t be used for it’s intended purpose.

 Maybe you wouldn't do this, maybe no one in your area would do this but there are places where if you allowed people to use the basketball courts for other purposes, people might never get to play basketball. Or where if those over eleven were allowed to play in the playground, those under eleven would never get to play there.(The one time I vividly remember kids over 11 at the playground they were riding bikes all over the playground equipment making it unusable by the smaller kids) A completely unrelated example of what I'm talking about- I live across the street from a park. In addition to a playground and basketball courts, there is an open paved area ( maybe 100 ft x 200 ft) with no restriction on activities. From the time I moved in (25 years ago) until a few years ago, that area has been used at various times by kids playing softball , roller skating, little kids learning to ride bikes , and older people doing tai chi, etc. Suddenly a large group of people (at least 50-60) who seemed to be associated with car services all over Queens starting showing up early every Saturday and Sunday to play volleyball until dark. Every nice weekend for the next three years. Nowhere in the neighborhood for kids to bike or skate or for the people  to do tai chi. I have no idea why this group wanted to place volleyball in this specific space when there is a 165 acre park with actual volleyball courts a half mile away- but they did. And as there were no restrictions on that area, they were able to basically take it over. Which is fine, because again, there were no restrictions. But I can see why some areas do have restrictions - people wanting to play basketball would have had some recourse if those volleyball games had been on basketball courts that were restricted to playing basketball.  

What you are describing is inappropriate behaviour in a park. Bringing kids into a dog park in which they are allowed “under supervision” isn’t necessarily inappropriate behaviour - it may or it may not be.

What of a person who has a dog and a kid? Could the person take their kid into the park to play with their own dog? That strikes me as perfectly acceptable - kids like to play with their pet dog outdoors off-leash, annd vice-versa, and where else are they supposed to do it if they live in the city?

 I believe this is the description of the park in the OP:

Clearly meant for dogs to play off leash- not for children. If it’s not already restricted - to dogs and their owners, no children under 12, only people who signed waivers of liability allowed in etc - it will be restricted or closed just as soon as the inevitable idiot lets their 2 year old play in the big dog section and the two year old gets knocked down by a couple of Golden Retrievers while the parent is staring at their phone. Because after all, there’s no rule that says he or she can’t do that.

There is such a rule. Young children are supposed to be supervised.

[Nava]

Wait, there are “old people parks”?

I never saw a dog park which wasn’t explicitly labeled “for people with dogs only”.

[Malthus]

@Nava

Wait, there are “old people parks”?

There soon will be, since we as a society seem to be headed in the direction that mixed uses cannot be tolerated, are completely incompatible, and there is no such thing as an expectation of reasonable give-and-take in public spaces. After all, I saw a video once on youtube of a little old lady being knocked down by a basketball. She probably broke her hip and sued the city …

[SciFiSam]

@Malthus

It’s like cognitive dissonance at work - you honestly don’t understand how it is even possible to have a fenced off, off-leash section of a park that is both for dogs and general use, and call it a “dog park”?

The name is pretty obvious - it differentiates the part of the park that is fenced off and in which dogs are allowed off-leash.

I would be pretty astonished to find an “old people’s park” in which non-old people were excluded, since I’ve never heard of such a thing.

The name isn’t obvious at all. Dog park is usually a park that’s primarily for dogs, not a park like any other park. Hence my analogy with “old people’s park.” You wouldn’t call a park an old people’s park just because old people go there, because old people go to parks all the time, so why do the same for a dog park just because dogs go there, like they do to most parks?

Your city calls it a dog park, but it just looks like a park.

[Malthus]

@SciFiSam

The name isn’t obvious at all. Dog park is usually a park that’s primarily for dogs, not a park like any other park. Hence my analogy with “old people’s park.” You wouldn’t call a park an old people’s park just because old people go there, because old people go to parks all the time, so why do the same for a dog park just because dogs go there, like they do to most parks?

Your city calls it a dog park, but it just looks like a park.

• Dogs allowed off-leash

• Fenced

These are what distinguish it from a non-dog-park. In every other park, dogs are not allowed off-leash and the park is not fenced so as to keep dogs in. Hence other parks are just “parks” and this one is a “dog park”.

Dunno why this is so difficult.

[SmellMyWort]

@SciFiSam

The name isn’t obvious at all. Dog park is usually a park that’s primarily for dogs, not a park like any other park. Hence my analogy with “old people’s park.” You wouldn’t call a park an old people’s park just because old people go there, because old people go to parks all the time, so why do the same for a dog park just because dogs go there, like they do to most parks?

Your city calls it a dog park, but it just looks like a park.

Have you even bothered to look at the links and map? High Park is a general use park that has within it a specific, fenced off area for off-leash dogs. Map.

In the map I posted it’s clear that the concessions and roads border the park so there’s really no reason for non-dog owners to enter that area unless they are trying to take some sort of short cut or actually wish to interact with unleashed dogs. Should they be allowed in there, sure. But then they need to follow the rules, too, and respect the designated users of that area by not interfering with the dogs without permission and assuming a slightly greater risk of injury. I also think that dog owners using this particular park need to be more mindful of non-dog owners entering that area (possibly even unknowingly) given the mixed use nature of the park as a whole, compared to a standalone dog park.

Regarding the OP, it sounds like a clash between two entitled assholes. The dog owner should mind his own business unless the kids were directly interfering with his dog. The parents should get a clue and find a more appropriate place for the kids to play.

[doreen]

@Malthus

What you are describing is inappropriate behaviour in a park.

Inappropriate , certainly. But not against the rules - which was my point. I was responding to a person who missed the days when parks were for everyone and there weren’t rules requiring that only basketball be played on the basketball court. I miss the days when people didn’t think that only behavior prohibited by the rules is inappropriate, when a people didn’t feel that a dog at play who might knock down a child should leave the dog park rather than the parent leaving with the child if they don’t want to take that risk , when they didn’t think that it’s fine for volleyball players to continue playing on the softball field even when people show up wanting to play softball. And the days when that old lady hit by the basketball wouldn’t have considered suing the city or anyone else.

In some places there is no expectation of a reasonable give-and-take precisely because too many people are not reasonable. When I was a kid, I went to the city-owned ice rink, paid my admission and skated. When I took my children to the same rink, I had to sign liability waivers first.  The city opened a tiny skatepark- just a few ramps- when my son was about 12. Had to have a signed liabilty waiver on file to use it. I suspect in my childhood , a parent who brought a kid into an off-leash dog park was thought to have assumed the risk of playful dog behavior. Not so today- at least not in many places.   

There is such a rule. Young children are supposed to be supervised.

And you might be shocked to discover how many people believe that merely being present constitutes supervision. Do you really think the parent I described is going to act any differently than the woman in the OP? Nobody is ever going to tell their friend “Some dog owner yelled at me to leave the park just because I wasn’t supervising my kids”

[Kaio]

@purplehorseshoe

… And a dog-owner at the off-leash park yells at the mother and her three children and orders them to all leave.

What say ye, O Dopers? Who was in the right, and who was in the wrong? Both? Start typing your answers, and then down below I’ll give you more details. But I’d like to know people’s gut responses first, to just the simplest and most basic facts in the most neutral way as possible.

Gut response: Mom and kids are in the wrong. Fine if no one objects, but if they are asked to leave they should respect that and find a kid-park. Even better, ask the dog guardians first.

The husband of said mother informs me that the city told them, “You’re taxpayers, you have as much right to be in a park as any other city resident. If [dog owner] does this again, call the cops.”

There’s what’s legal and what’s courteous (and smart, see below). They are not always the same standard. I think people of character uphold courtesy.

The mother told me that the dog owner in question said, “My dog doesn’t like kids,” to which she responded, “Then don’t bring your dog to the dog park.”

How very entitled of her. The dog park is FOR dogs, not kids. There are kid parks for her family. “Not good with kids” does not equal “not good with other dogs.”

Part of me feels that if the mother and kids had brought a dog with them, nobody would have looked at them askance.

Of course not. It’s a dog park, that’s what it’s for. And presumably if the kids bring their own dog, they will be playing and minding their own dog, and not getting up in the face of anyone else’s dog. Without their own dog, just what are the kids going to do? Sit on a bench and stare?

Part of me feels that a dog park should not be treated as a free zoo.

Part of me feels that if a dog/kid conflict of personalities is imminent (i.e. the dog “doesn’t like kids”) the dog has more right to be in a dog park than a child with no dog.

Agreed. There are other parks that are specifically for people/families.

The three children in question are all under the age of four years.

That makes it worse. The mom should know better. A teenager, with or without a dog, is at least world-wise enough to not pull ears and tails. A toddler isn’t, and a “leave me alone” nip would do a toddler a lot more damage than someone older. Mom basically decided she was entitled to put the dog owner at a huge liability risk, even after he explained to her that the dog has needs for handling that explicitly doesn’t include kids. One pulled ear and there might be a bleeding toddler and a soon-to-be-euthanized dog. I’d be pretty pissy if someone felt entitled to defy reason and put my pet at risk like that too. DOGS ARE NOT TOYS. And her kids aren’t entitled to play with someone else’s dog without that person’s permission – which she explicitly did not have.

[Nava]

@Kaio

A teenager, with or without a dog, is at least world-wise enough to not pull ears and tails.

And dicks. And scratch noses. Sometimes I wonder how did some of my cousins manage to reach their adult years.

[KarlGrenze]

@Nava

And dicks. And scratch noses. Sometimes I wonder how did some of my cousins manage to reach their adult years.

Tolerant dogs who were trained to accept that in exchange for table scraps.