Arroyo Grande dog park needs more oversight

January 12, 2015

Arroyo Grande dog parkOPINION BY PATTY WELSH

The Five Cities Dog Park Association has plans to put artificial grass in the majority of a large dog park in Arroyo Grande, and I have some concerns about the project.

Let me start by saying I have used the dog park ever since it has opened in 2009, and my dogs love being able to socialize with other dogs in a safe and healthy off-leash dog park. I have lived in Arroyo Grande for 15 years, and participate in city council meetings, sanitation district meetings, was on the save the village group and try to stay informed and involved, but I have found that hard to do with this project and I feel those who use the park have the right to know.

The association recently spent $5,200 to put in a nice kiosk to post information on. However, they do not use it to keep us informed of projects using donated money until the very last moment, as was the case with the artificial grass.

They sent a letter to the parks and recreation commissioners on Nov. 22, yet failed to post it in the kiosk for all to read. It was not until after Dec 10, when the project got approved that they posted what they would be doing. And the project will be 5,400 square feet of artificial grass, boarded by decomposing granite and paths to gates, and then wood chips around that.

The reason for the project is that the association has received complaints of splinters in dog feet from the wood chips, dogs eating the wood chips, and glass and metal found in the chips. We used to have real grass, however it died because there was no irrigation system to the grass, and the dogs wore it out.

This project uses less wood chips, but they are still using wood chips, so the complaints may very likely still occur even after spending all the reserves and then some. And that brings up another issue, the association is stating on their Facebook page that “they need help to fund and maintain a major improvement to the big dog park section.” It goes on to state the “projects cost will mostly be paid for from funds we have already raised…. but that will impact our ability to cover our regular cost like mutt mitts.”

So I am not sure this is a financially good project at this time, and don’t know why it got approved by parks and recreation, if they can’t cover the cost of regular maintenance, which is in the agreement with the city.

In the Nov. 22 letter to park and recreation, the association says, “minimal water usage increase” and they will wash it down “quarterly or less frequently in order to further insure there is no residual odor.”

I have talked to some local kennels that use artificial grass, and they wash their turf down every week. I went by one just today and could smell some urine odor, yet I was informed they clean it every Sunday. So if it gets to the point of needing to rinse down 5,400 square feet of artificial grass every week, it will be more than minimal, and we are in a drought. I also want to know what chemicals they will use to wash this product down with.

Then according to the Association of Synthetic Grass Installers, it is recommended to “shade the areas because the high heat of your climate creates higher temperatures on the artificial turf surface.”

So during the summer and heat waves this could become very hot on animals feet. And since dogs perspire through their feet it could cause dehydration. The grass installer’s group also recommends it is rinsed weekly. That is one other area of concern I have pointed out to the board, we need more trees to shade our dogs during hot weather, with or without the turf being installed.

One of the kennels I visited also had concerns about dogs digging at the material and causing it to separate at the seams. So who is going to do the proper maintenance on the turf?

There is also health risk with this product and according to the Center of environmental health out of Oakland, under prop 65 the association would need to post signs of cancer risk because of the use of petroleum products in the grass. There is also the concern for bacteria that can survive 90 days on this material and during wetter months algae and moss growth can cause issues. I would like time to do more research on these issues prior to the installation.

I have been able to delay this project. Nevertheless, it will presented to the Arroyo Grande City Council Jan. 13 at 6:00 p.m. at 215 East Branch Street. So I urge pet owners who use the dog park to please attend the meeting.

Get local opinion, like CalCoastNews on Facebook.


Loading...
45 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

My four dogs notice slightly more than I do probably but, they love the huge pit atmostphere where than can run it out, sniff more tails than their dreams have ever captured then take a windows down cruise home. (I think they enjoy watching us grabbing turds with plastic mits too). I honestly can’t think of a single thing wrong with the dog park.


Let’s learn from the dogs and press on, shall we?


Can’t tell if you’re in favor of artificial turf or not, are you pressing for plastic grass?


Must we always box people into one “side” or the other?


First world problems.


A decision will be made, one way or the other. Currently the park is covered with bark, and according to our vet, it causes a significant number of injures, i.e. Splinters, etc.

I’m not trying to box anyone in–suggestions are always helpful!


A splinter is not an injury. I think a mountain is being made of a mole hill. I understand it’s an easy mountain to make, as many people are overly-connected to their animals and it’s a knee-jerk reaction; but reality must creep back into our lives, even the spoiled white community.


When the splinter requires a vet visit, what WOULD you call it?


Really, I don’t know what you are complaining about. You say yourself that they only need money for things like dog poop bags. That is minor. Seems like you are looking for a problem. Or maybe you just don’t like the park and are hiding your sentiments for some reason. Your altruism seems suspect to me.


It’s not unreasonable that someone who utilizes the dog park on a daily basis would be upset when they learn of these proposed changes AFTER they’ve been approved. Who was notified? This is one of the very reasons people in AG voted for change!

I spoke with our vet and he also had many reservations about this product being placed at the park. According to him, this must be watered similarly to grass. He also mentioned the cost, apparently kennel grade turf is significantly higher than that of other turf.


Beats me how any self respecting dog is supposed to be happy on plastic grass.

Animals like natural elements, dirt, grass, water, etc.

Planting plastic green grass may please some humans (until the smell kicks in),

but dogs would be happier with plain ‘ol dirt if real grass is unaffordable.


It is less about being pleasing to the animals than it is about maintenance and cleanliness. Dogs are generally OK with any surface short of lava rock. But it is very difficult to keep a natural grass yard intact with the use a dog park gets even with adequate irrigation. Dirt yards are muddy when wet and tend to develop big potholes where use is heaviest when dry. Artificial grass is easier to maintain although water use is still a consideration for purposes of keeping it clean. Does it take less water to clean artificial grass once a week or to irrigate natural grass 2-3 times per week? I don’t know.


When it’s damp and somewhat slippery (which these turfs experience) and the playing pups lose traction during playtime, whose going to pay the multi-thousands $$ bill for the blown out ACL injuries? I have a heavily trained field Labrador that will never see the likes of a dog park due to the nature of what goes between dogs there but I wouldn’t take that away from those that wish to utilize such a facility. I think it’s a good thing.


Something tells me those making the decisions on this project didn’t complete their homework assignments on the matter. I hope they reconsider.


Bob,

I remember when artificial turf was new and football stadiums installed it. As I recall, there was a significant increase in injuries to players, and then the trend was to remove it and return to natural grass? Is that still the case?


Washing down the turf only quarterly won’t be nearly enough for the number of dogs that visit the dog park! If we have rain this winter, that will help, but not much. I wonder if they have considered an area of dirt and another of gorilla hair? You could replace gorilla hair for the next 5 years and not spend what will be spent on the turf.


You might be surprised by the cost of gorilla hair for that big an area but you may be right about it taking at least 5 years to match the cost of artificial turf (properly installed). There are 2 problems with gorilla hair and dog parks though. First, it can be very difficult to remove dog poop from it as completely as one can from grass (natural or artificial.) Second, the nature of gorilla hair means that many dogs end up with it stuck to their fur.


Patty raises some good issues. The dog park is a public nuisance and health hazard. It should be closed and sold off to pay off city debts.


Then, Patty can play with her dog on her own lawn instead.


And what if Patty lives in an apartment and doesn’t have a lawn? Or do you just have no compassion or understanding toward that issue.


Yes, there are a number of people posting here that think not being able to afford a house with a lawn borders on criminality and that those who don’t should have to pay the penalty by not owning a pet.


If the public funds parks with sports fields (which not everyone needs or wants to use,) there is no reason that dog parks can’t be proportionately funded for those with different recreational preferences.


Arroyo Grande City Council meets tomorrow/Tuesday, Jan. 13 at 6:00pm.


Your Mayor is on the Congalton Show this afternoon to respond to recent criticism and also addresses issues facing the South County Sanitation District.


I heard Jim Hill say on the Congalton Show that the dog park is NOT on the agenda for this meeting. The most you can do on THIS issue by attending is to make a public comment at the beginning of the meeting.


And possibly have the council agree to agendize it for a later date.


Or tomorrow night, the 13th?


The meeting is tonight, January 12th, correct?


Why on earth do the taxpayers have to fund a park for other people’s dogs? This is a classic transfer of money to those who need to take care of their own pet or not own one. If you can’t figure out how to clean up after your dog or don’t have the space, then perhaps this means you should not have one!


The tax payers DO NOT fund the dog park, it is fully funded by our donations.


Dogeatdog;

How much is paid each month to the City (and ultimately the taxpayers) each month for the exclusive use of the dog park property?


Just curious…


probably as much as people who use the rest of the park.


How much do people pay to come play ball with their kids in the park.


Oh maybe that is considered exclusive use of the human park?


Just curious……