The field at Sawyer Park where ultimate players have been tossing the disc for years could soon be Bend newest off-leash dog area.The sight of a dog chasing down a Frisbee is pretty standard, something
you’d expect to see on a greeting card accompanied by the phrase: “Keep
your eyes on the prize!” or something equally corny. But currently in
Bend, dogs and Frisbees, or perhaps more accurately dog owners and
ultimate Frisbee players, are butting heads as the two groups vie for
use of the scenic grass field at Robert W. Sawyer Park.
The 45-acre
park, which spans the Deschutes River at the Northwest end of town, was
on the short list of parks up for consideration for Bend’s next
off-leash dog area. The other options included High Desert Park and the
soon-to-be completed Pine Nursery Park, both of which are on Bend’s
eastside. Currently, park district staff has recommended to the parks
board that the field at Sawyer be considered as the site of the new
off-leash area, according to Director of Park Services Ed Moore.
The decision isn’t final, and there is still a public meeting at the end of this month to further discuss the issue, but the possibility of losing the field where David Caplan and his fellow Bend Ultimate players have been hucking the disc since the club’s inception in 1992, isn’t sitting well with the members of the organization. The club currently uses the field for pick-up games on Tuesday and Thursday nights, despite the fact that the parks district doesn’t officially consider the expansive stretch of well-manicured grass a sports field. In fact, in an e-mail to concerned ultimate players, the district said it was not aware that ultimate players were still using Sawyer Park. The field is also home to kickball games (most notably the tournament between rival Bend breweries) and other activities.
Caplan, although not a dog owner, isn’t quite sure why Sawyer’s field should be converted into an off-leash area.
“It seems like there’s not a big urban need for it. Even if there is, which not being a dog owner I can’t say for sure, I don’t understand why a grassy field needs to be included in that,” Caplan says.
Off-leash dog parks got their start in urban areas where there is little or no space to let a dog run off leash. While Bend is hardly a big city, some dog owners say that the demand for off-leash areas in Bend suggests that we’re living in an increasingly urban (and suburban) style community.
Currently, dogs must be on the leash at Sawyer.In Portland, the city’s parks and recreation department began exploring the need for off-leash areas about a decade ago and by 2000 began creating spots of dogs to run free. Today, the district has 31 areas, six of which are fenced, but some of those 31 parks only allow dogs to be off leash during certain hours, according to Marissa Dorias, a botanic technician who heads up Portland Parks and Recreation’s Dogs for the Environment program.
“We have more of these parks per capita than most cities, and for the most part, the response from the public is positive,” Dorias said.
In Bend, however, sanctioned off-leash areas are much newer to the landscape. Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District opened its first, and currently only, off-leash area in 2005 at Big Sky Park on the east side of town. The dog area includes three acres of fenced grass, which is a small chunk of the 97.2 acres that comprise Big Sky Park as a whole. There is another privately owned dog park in the Old Mill District that’s open to the public, but it’s not affiliated with BMPRD. Dogs are also allowed off the leash on the portions of the Deschutes River Trail maintained by the U.S. Forest Service, but not between May 1 and October 1.
But dog owners like Kreg Lindberg, a member of DogPAC, a group that originally worked with former police Chief Andy Jordan on the off-leash issue, believe that one official off-leash area is hardly enough for a dog-centric spot like Bend.
“We need to have convenient places where people can take their dogs off leash. If those places aren’t convenient, then people will continue to go to whatever park is closest to them and basically break the law and have the dog off leash,” said Lindberg, an instructor of recreation and tourism at OSU-Cascades.
Lindberg says he obeys leash laws when out with Lani, the mixed Labrador retriever he adopted a few years ago, but can’t say the same for others. He sees this willingness by some to break a law that’s accompanied by a relatively hefty fine as a testament to the need for off-leash areas.
“The fact that people are willing to risk a fine shows that they really value the off-leash experience,” Lindberg said.
There is also an aesthetic question at stake with Sawyer Park. The field, or “meadow,” as the parks district has referred to the location in recent e-mails to concerned ultimate players, despite the fact (which the players have pointed out) that the grass is mowed and irrigated (the word “meadow” technically refers to an un-maintained area of grass, or a field harvested for hay), is currently unrestricted by fences, bordered only by trees. That would change if the parks board designates the park as an off-leash area and a fence is built to enclose sections of the field.
“It really is a treasure and the fact that you can get to it along the river trail is special,” said Dave Caplan, a 46-year-old graphic designer and a 15-year veteran of Bend Ultimate.
Moore said, however, that the aforementioned fence wouldn’t be the eyesore that some might think it to be.
“It isn’t as though we’re going to put a chain link fence all the way around it. That was never the intent,” Moore says, “The fence will only go on one stretch to contain the off-leash dogs from getting on private property.”
The parks district points to a recent community survey where 40 percent of households that responded said they had a need for off-leash areas. Moore said that proves that dog owners are yet another faction of the recreational community that the district must accommodate.
“We’re just trying to find a balance between all the user groups that need facilities. We never intended to pit one group against another,” said Moore, who has more than 30 years of parks and recreation experience under his belt.
But Caplan, and other ultimate players, told the Source that ultimate doesn’t get the same priority as some more traditional sports.
“We need more fields and I realize that every sport is impacted by [that shortage], but we’re seen as outsiders. We’re not a bunch of hippies running around. The mayor of Bend used to play ultimate, the publisher of the Source plays, and there’s all sorts of professionals from Bend Research, as well,” Caplan said.
Caplan did, however, admit that the parks district is willing to work with the league – but said he does question the “mechanics of the allocation process.”
Moore insists there is no discrimination at hand and also cited the growing need for relatively new recreation needs that he doesn’t believe would have been considered as necessary earlier on in his parks and rec career.
“We have a responsibility to look at the development of skate parks and off leash areas just like we have a need to develop sports fields.”
Bend Ultimate still has access to other parks and recreation fields, even if Sawyer becomes an off-leash area, but like other adult sports, the group receives secondary priority to youth sports when under consideration for field use by the district, Moore said. Caplan said that losing Sawyer wouldn’t end Bend Ultimate, or the other independent sports that use the field, but it does take one more field out of the equation in an already crowded scrum for playing space.
No matter what decision the district ultimate chooses, it seems, at least from the disenfranchisement conveyed by both Caplan and Lindberg, that not everyone is going to be happy. Yet, on the other hand, the two men present an air of civility and respect toward their opposition.
“Our goal is not to displace people, but for some understanding that we as dog owners have been completely displaced from the parks,” said Lindberg, who also maintains that sharing our public areas is integral as the city grows.
“I’m sure that they have a valid argument, but there’s not room for everyone right now and there’s plenty of land around town that’s suited for dogs,” Caplan countered.
This article appears in May 8-14, 2008.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
I am a dog owner and up until recently I was a huge supporter of the Big Sky dog park and the need for more off leash areas for dogs in Bend. On April 20, 2008 my dog was attacked at Big Sky Dog Park and almost killed. The dog that attacked him was 3 to 4 times his size and the attack was totally unprovoked. My dog’s name is Axel and he is a one and a half year old basset hound schipperke mix and weighs roughly 30lbs. He is very friendly and submissive. When the attacking dog started to get aggressive my dog rolled over so consequently all the injuries were on his neck and chest. It took four people to separate the dogs. One man who was there with his dog reached into the middle of it with his bare hands and pried the other dog off my dog because it would not let go. ( If you are reading this thank you so much, you most likely saved my dogs life at the risk of being bitten yourself!) Axel had several severe injuries but one of the worst injuries was on his neck right next to his jugular. The hole in his neck was about the size of a quarter. Luckily his jugular was not punctured otherwise he would have bled to death. It was also lucky that he is young and will heal quickly; an older dog would have faired much worse.
Part of the reason my dog was so badly injured was that the attacking dog was so much bigger than him. If there is going to be several more dog parks in Bend maybe one should be just for small dogs, 30 lbs and under. I know several people who don’t take their small dogs to Big Sky park because there are so many large dogs there and they worry about the safety of their small dogs. After the attack on my dog my fiancรยฉ and I left the park in a hurry to get him to the emergency vet. We did not stick around to get the name and phone number of the owner of the attacking dog; however she contacted the emergency vet and gave them her name and phone number to give to me. She is a Portland resident and has been taking her dog to off leash dog parks since the dog was a puppy. Her dog had never attacked another dog or been aggressive with other dogs, so it just goes to show that dogs are unpredictable creatures and that you take that risk every time you use the dog park. I was lucky that the owner is a responsible person and is willing to help pay the vet bill, that is not always the case. Obviously she is not going to take her dog to off leash areas anymore. I am not going to take my dog to off leash areas either unless a small dog only, off leash area opens up. My dog loves to play with other dogs and it’s sad that he won’t be able to go to dog parks anymore but I don’t feel like I can risk him being attacked again. I just want people to realize that while the dog parks are a great way to socialize your dog and get them some exercise, they are not supervised and attacks do happen. People need to be responsible pet owners and not take their dogs to off leash areas if they have shown ANY signs of being aggressive with other dogs. It is also very important that in creating more dog parks, there will be areas designated to small dogs only.
I wanted to add that people need to take into consideration what an off leash dog area does to a well kept lawn. If you have been to Big Sky Dog Park you know that the “grassy area” has practically been destroyed by all the dogs. I think it would be a major mistake for an off leash dog area to be put in at the Sawyer Park Meadow.
Yes, I agree…. small (1-30ish), medium (31-60ish), and large (61-up) size dog parks need to be created and separated. Great idea!!! Granted, the size of the dog does not always translate temper, however, the risks are cut drastically due to dogs being able to “handle” their own size category.
I’m very sorry to hear about what happened to Melissa’s dog, and I agree that dogs can be unpredictable. For that reason, I do not believe dogs should be allowed off-leash in playground areas. I also agree 110% that dog owners need to be responsible — and that there be designated areas for small dogs. Nonetheless, my conclusion from incidents such as this is not that we should close parks to off-leash dogs. That is equivalent to taking away everyone’s driver’s license or banning alcohol because a drunk driver was in an accident. We need to hold the drunk driver responsible without denying everyone else the right to drive.
The fact that the turf at Big Sky has been destroyed is precisely why we need more off-leash areas. The heavy use at Big Sky demonstrates the unmet need for off-leash areas in the city. If we only had one soccer field in town and it was used year-round during every moment of daylight, its turf also would be destroyed. By opening more parks to off-leash access, we reduce the use at each individual park — and we can cater to special needs, such as small-dog-only areas.
Mike fell prey to the journalist tendency for sensationalism (I don’t think anyone is “butting heads”) and the occasional misquote (like many other dog owners, I have been known to allow Lani off-leash in parks on occasion). Nonetheless, he did a good job overall. I want to reiterate that dog owners, and DogPAC, have no desire to displace other users — and that we’re only in this situation because we’ve been completely displaced from parks within the city.
I ask dog owners to be respectful of other park users, including those not wishing to encounter or be displaced by off-leash dogs. I ask other park users to be respectful of dog owners, as fellow citizens and taxpayers. Half of Bend’s households have dogs, and off-leash access is the largest unmet need according to Parks and Rec’s research. The solution is not to kick dog owners out of the parks that they help fund and that are part of our community fabric. The solution is to integrate dog owners into the community — and enforce responsible dog ownership in the process. At DogPAC (dogpac.org), we are in the process of building our web content. In the near future, it will include our vision for Bend and Central Oregon generally: A community in which dog guardians have access to public lands that provide quality and convenient recreation experiences. Dog guardians are responsible and considerate of others; all residents are tolerant of each other and willingly share public spaces. Dogs help connect residents with each other, thereby strengthening community bonds.
Following on Melissa Gwinup’s comment, why not turn the native landscape of the Pine Nursery into an off-leash dog area? I agree – dogs don’t need the special landscaping. They’re as happy running around in sagebrush as they are in a grassy field.
I feel for Melissa but the fact is, is that they are dogs. They are animals that have instincts that we believe we have conquered as humans. I have a dog that I take to the dog park and he is rather large, but usually what happens is that the small dogs are the ones to start fights. They are intimidated and so try to show they aren’t scared by nipping and such.
I do like the idea of a park for smaller dogs and one for bigger dogs though. I am tired of small dog owners whining that they are afraid of the big dogs around them. These are also the same people on the river trail that like to cry.
This guy David Caplan appears to be a separatist and thinks that “his people” are better than other people. I am not a quote hippy but just on the fact that he believes his group is more legitimate than a group of hippies is fact enough to see that ultimate frisbee isn’t what it used to be. I won’t banter about that.
More people need to get on board around here for turning over current laws on ‘off-leash areas’
I also want to weigh in on the issue of aggressive dogs in offleash parks. I will no longer take my pup to Big Sky as I have encountered too many dogs and owners who scare me with respect to behavior and attitude. I donot feel my dog is safe there simply because the rules are posted. Nor are my children safe when owners of aggressive and out of control dogs are in the park. These folks will ruin the off leash system for all of us. We need to develop solutions to keep inappropriate dogs and their irresponsible or ignorant ownerrs out of the offleash parks in Central Oregon.
Thanks Kreg Lindburg for pointing out that “butting heads” as stated in the article might be an exageration. I would bet that many of the ultimate players have dogs themselves and are in this case just protective of their favorite field.
I agree with many of the comments posted but how can we possibly address all these issues without more dog parks? This is the issue, we need more that one park. How can we have small dog parks when we have only ONE PARK AT ALL!
How can one small group of ultimate players possible complain about being seen as “outsiders” when all the dog owners of Bend Oregon have ONE small fenced park to take their dogs?
The overwhelming need for off-leash dog parks in Bend quite overshadows any questions or concerns against the idea, in my opinion. And, again as Kreg said previously, creating more parks would eliminate most if not all of peoples concerns anyway. Less traffic in one dog park and less incidents where off leash dog joins a picnic uninvited. (I admit, that one was my doggie Scout.)
There will always be the contingent that don’t like dogs and will fight against any situation that they feel will infringe on their clean and quiet lives. Well, they can wear their white pants, stay in their own fenced backyard an no one will bother them.
The pop-off-the-page fact in Bookey’s piece is that forty percent of respondents to a recent BMPRD community survey cited a need for off-leash dog areas. I’m terrible at math but that adds up to roughly 30,000 folks . If you’re in that sizable group and would like your voice to be heard, I invite you to do what I did, check out http://www.dogpac.org.
It’s a smart, grownup, clear-eyed group of your neighbors who “get” that infinitely more can be accomplished through folks talking TO each other rather than AT each other. Those of us who strongly feel the need for more off-leash dog areas convenient to more people need to do more than sit on our porches or patios grumbling about “them,” whoever “they” might be. DogPAC. org is a well-thought-out way to both
speak up, engage in civil civic dialogue, and move forward toward a reachable goal. If our fellow Oregonians in Portland can figure out how to create more than thirty off-leash dog areas, those of us in Bend can surely, over time, establish a number of them
appropriate to the size and population of our marvelously dog-loving community.
Ben, thanks for attacking David Caplan. That is a great way to up the quality of the discussion.
David’s comments simply were aimed at buttressing the argument that Bend Ultimate is a legitimate sport club and conversion of Sawyer park to an off-leash field will effectively displace Ultimate and other legitimate groups who use this field for non-park and rec sanctioned sports.
While I can sympathize with Kreg’s and the dog owning community’s need for off-leash areas, it hardly make sense to convert one of Bend’s most pristine fields into an off-leash area. Park and Rec currently has a dismal inventory of fields, relying heavily on the school district’s fields, yet the community in survey after survey ranks fields low on the needs list.
The purpose of this article and the Ultimate community’s response to BMP&R’s staff recommendation has been to raise awareness that another segment of the community will be negatively impacted by converting Sawyer park to an off leash area.
It is clear that Bend is in need of more sanctioned off-leash areas for dogs to play! It is a well-documented fact that a well-exercised dog is a well-behaved dog; being mentally and physically fulfilled allows dogs to be better citizens.
I used to frequent Big Sky a few days per week when I lived on the East side, but now that I am on the West side, I cannot justify driving 10+ miles to the dog park. It is absurd for me to ride a bicycle to work to reduce my carbon footprint and save money, then drive twice the distance to exercise and socialize my dog.
The fact that there are easily 20 dogs per day who are illegally taken to play at our local school is proof that there is a need in our community both for more dog parks and for dog parks that are located throughout our community, not just on the outskirts.
At the core of this issue (or at least the angle that The Source is working) is the need to create a mutually beneficial arrangement for all parties involved, not just dog owners. Look to New York as a case study: there are limited hours and days among many parks all over the city where dogs can play off-leash. These are not “dog parks”, but rather city parks with dog-friendly days and times. This allows the parks to continue to be multi-use public areas and meet the needs of a diverse community.
It sounds to me that with the oversight of the Ultimate crowd, that Bend Parks and Rec needs to do a more comprehensive analysis of the use of all our public spaces and find a harmonious home for everyone. I do believe that with limited days/hours, the meadow at Sawyer can work for both groups.
I hope that the local media as well as Bend Parks and Rec do not get bogged down by the logistics aspect and can actually be proactive in meeting our community’s needs. Read the Bend Parks and Rec survey: we need more places for our dogs to play.
I also think dog owners have been completely displaced from parks by the city. A good, fair, and relatively simple solution would be to make all parks(except Drake Park) “off leash” accessible for a few hours a day. Neighborhoods surrounding the parks could set the hours of their choosing. The advantages of this would be: 1)the grass in all parks would stay green, not get overused like Big Sky 2)you’d get to know a lot of your neighbors, since dog owners would tend to use a park within walking distance of their house, which is good for strengthing community bonds 3)you would use less gas if you didn’t have to drive to a “dog park”. Gas is a dwindling resource, expensive, etc…We need to be more energy conscious. 4)when dogs go to the same neighborhood park regularly, they get to know each other, and become buddies. There is a decreased chance of aggressiveness compared to a “dog park”.
Our parks are quite heavily used in June, July, and August. The other 9 months of the year don’t see a lot of use. Our dogs would love to use those 9 months more appropriately. They need exercise, just like us, OFF LEASH.
It is great that so many people–dog people and non dog people–are thinking about this issue. Two words: Tolerance and Respect. We all need to both tolerate those with different issues and priorities then we have and respect their rights to enjoy the great open spaces of Bend as we do. I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards kid play areas although I don’t have kids . . . and am immensely grateful that others’ tax dollars pay for a fantastic library even if not everyone uses it as much as I do. Off lead dog parks that are easily accessible to the majority of Bend’s population, that are respectively used (ie PICK UP AFTER YOUR DOGS PEOPLE!) and maintained by the city will only add to the appeal of our wonderful city as a great place to live and to visit.
I am one of the roughly 40,000 taxpayers living in Bend who own dogs. In the past five years, the places that I can legally take my dogs to run and play off-leash have become steadily fewer and farther from home. There is a great need and desire among responsible dog owners for easily accessible places to recreate with their dogs off leash.
I am not in favor of fenced dog parks like the one at Big Sky, because – as Melissa Gwinup found – they can bring out unpredictable behavior even in friendly dogs. I believe that the solution to the problem is legal off-leash access to many parks in Bend, particularly parks that are already being used for off-leash recreation – illegally and with the risk of an expensive fine. The more legal access we have for off-leash use, the less concentrated that use will be, the less impact that use will have, and the less conflict will arise among dogs and among different users.
The potential “conflict” between dog owners and Ultimate Frisbee players described in The Source article should not exist. Bend has many parks, and those offer many different venues for all types of recreation – enough for all users to share. The issue should not be whether the Sawyer Park field should be used only for Ultimate Frisbee or only for off-leash dog recreation. Why should a big field with river access, like that at Sawyer Park, be limited to use by a single group? Perhaps the current problem should not be viewed as a “conflict between user groups,” but as the need for Parks & Rec to find better ways to allow user groups to share resources.
The population of Bend has doubled in the last decade, greatly increasing the pressure put on local resources of all kinds, including parks. The city government and Parks & Rec responded (perhaps not entirely fairly) to that pressure by establishing and enforcing strict regulations, primarily restricting off-leash use of public resources by dog owners. We now have the opportunity to revise those regulations and figure out better ways to share our public resources. Let’s not argue – let’s make good use of this opportunity. I urge all dog owners to attend the meeting on May 27th and talk to Parks and Rec personnel and other user groups about getting our fair share!
Ben Warburton, I felt that your comments about small dog owners were really rude. When you say that you are “tired of small dog owners whining that they are afraid of the big dogs around them” and “These are also the same people on the river trail that like to cry” you are just asking for someone to get upset. It’s easy for you to take your large dog out and not have to worry that some small dog will kill it, but that is a very real fear for many small dog owners. You also stated that the small dogs are usually the ones who start fights. I have personally not witnessed that. Almost all the dogs I have seen being aggressive at Big Sky have been medium to large dogs. I have seen some small dogs get รข nippyรข ย as you say but I certainly donรข โขt think that they start most of the fights. I personally do not have anything against large dogs as long as their owners are able to control them. My dog loves all dogs no matter what size they are and often plays with the bigger dogs. He has never nipped at another dog just because he is on the smaller side. I think that having a off leash area just for small dogs is a great idea but we need a lot more dog parks before one can be dedicated just for small dogs.
I really feel that it all comes down to being a responsible dog owner. If your dog has shown signs of being aggressive with other dogs don’t take them to an off leash dog park. If you are at an off leash dog park and your normally friendly dog starts behaving aggressively put them on a leash and remove them from the situation. I agree with the idea that there needs to be some kind of protocol for dealing with irresponsible dog owners at the off leash parks. If a dog is being aggressive and the owner does nothing about it what do you do? Most people take their dogs and leave. However one time when I was at Big Sky a fight almost broke out between two dog owners and had they had to be separated by the other people there. This is a very big problem that needs to be addressed and unfortunately I’m not sure how this can be fixed. If there were more off leash areas people would frequent the ones closest to their homes and, as Greg Evans stated, dogs that frequent the same park regularly will get to know each other and become buddies. That would decrease the chances of aggressive behavior. Possibly it would also decrease the chances of altercations between the owners if they see each other a lot and live in the same area, but who knows. There is a huge demand for more off leash areas in Bend and we all need to work together to make sure that these places are a safe and happy environment for both the dogs and their owners.
I’m personally not an off-leash dog fan. I like dogs and I like dog owners, but I definitely see the value of “segregating” off-leash activity.
See the thing is, most dogs are nice. But as some commenters have pointed out, others are not. How do you tell which ones? When I’m in the park with my kids, I don’t want to be on edge wondering which big slobbering dog is friendly and which isn’t as the dog, out of his owner’s control, runs up to say “hi.”
I know that hard-core dog people think that it’s safe enough to assume all friendly-looking dogs are friendly. But if my kid gets bit in the face and she’s asking me with a scarred face in 20 years why I let that dog bite her, “he looked friendly” won’t cut it.
When I was a kid, another neighbor kid got bit in the face by an off-leash dog in the park (to be fair to the dog, they say he accidentally poked the dog in the eye while trying to hug it) and ended up with lifetime scars faster than anyone could do anything about it. The dog was destroyed. And my takeaway from that was “this is preventable.” And it is: owners need to control their dogs when there are people around.
Is playing with dogs off-leash SO valuable to society that it’s worth it to allow it in every park in town? Especially when we’re surrounded by woods and desert where no leash laws apply? Accidents will happen, you know. Can you promise me your dog won’t bite – EVER?