Dog runs within community

Tonight we have a working BOT meeting. On the agenda is adding dog runs to our community, within the common areas. It has just been thrown out there for us to discuss. My question is do you have dog runs within your community? What are the positive and negatives aspects of it? I am also concerned from a legal standpoint what would happen if a dog attacked another dog or a human on the common area, which is owned by the HOA.

add a simple rule to your list of dog rules: dogs must not be allowed to run unsupervised, and legally, are to be under the control of their owner at all times.
HOA not responsible for actions of the animals nor their owners.

(or my favorite: the HOA cannot be held responsible for the actions of the dumb animals that play here, nor their dogs).

(under the control doesn't equal leashed in the eyes of the law). This could help limit your liability in the event of a dog fight/bite.

I love dog parks, our city owns one, but I would never, ever want one under my HOA. Too much liability. Its pretty much impossible to sue the city, and citys have special laws that dont apply to everyone else, but its really easy to sue a HOA.

At our city dog park, there is at least 20 people there every time I go. I see at least 1 major problem per week. I know someone who works at the local vet and they say they see so many dogs come in from dog biting other dogs from that dog park. While they dont enjoy seeing dog bites, its great for business. Sometimes little kids get frightened from over excited dogs and sometimes trampled. I once saw a guy try and break up a dog fight and he came out all bloody. He had bites all over his hands. I didn't see him again, so I'm not sure of the outcome.

I can only imagine the first incident that happens and someone sues, your HOA insurance will go sky high or they may even drop you after. The next insurance company might not even insure you till you shut the dog park down. Just a word of warning.

Creating a dog park then stating "HOA not responsible for actions of the animals nor their owners" No, that wont fly in court. The dog park was built for dogs to run around. Just because you add a disclaimer that your not responsible doesn't make it so when you come before a judge.

Just like dog parks, most skateboard parks are also run by the city. The injury rate is high, and there is pretty much nothing you can do.

A few cupcakes laced with antifreeze consumed by dogs running in a dog park will quickly eliminate the issue from your agenda. Aside from other issues of liability I'd hate to spend the money on a dog park and then have the above happen, which then eliminates the need for a free run dog park....cause they'll either be dead, or owners won't allow their dogs to run free ...in case they eat one of the cupcakes.

RobertG12,

JenC, indicated a dog run was put on the agenda to discuss. I'm assuming it is on the agenda because someone wants the HOA to put one in. If so there will be a cost.

BEFORE the HOA incurs the expense I would think they would want to be sure they consider all aspects from liability to whether it would be used if they spend X $'s.

This brings me to a news story here that just occurred a week or so ago.
Someone put antifreeze laced cupcakes out and some free running dogs ate them. Dog owners are no longer using the park the way it was designed...allowing their dogs to run free. Money was spent to put in a free run dog park and dogs can't/aren't running free. Demand for a free run park may still exist but it isn't safe and no longer used so an unanticipated incident has caused the dog parks usefulness to be greatly reduced.

I guess what I'm really saying is don't spend the HOA money until you are sure those calling for one, really understand all the risks and are prepared for them so that when something like this happens the dog park doesn't become an unused dog park.

Yes I see your point not having had the benefit of the knowledge of the news story.
I've heard people leaving tainted meat but cupcakes!!!! Apparently dogs will eat anything. The person is just lucky some kid didn't come along cause a cupcake would be pretty attractive to them, more so than meat.

The liability issues of a privately owned bark park are not much different than owning a pool or a playground. Maintenance and access control is another issue altogether. In some cases both public and private bark parks have become dumping grounds for unwanted animals. And, there is the clean up problem.

Without going to great expense, how can you control access to residents only, particularly if it is in an isolated location?

Also, is it practicable to perhaps, charge a separate fee, to dog owners for access?

Dogs sickened after devouring teen's discarded pot treats
Police reveal boy's carelessness to blame in poisoning scare for dog owners
Article Comments (16) TIMOTHY APPLEBY

Globe and Mail update

April 17, 2009 at 4:44 PM EDT

It was less a dog's breakfast than a near-lethal dog's supper.

One casualty was Cally the poodle. A second was Hazel the beagle. Abby the black miniature schnauzer got sick too, as did a fourth pooch.

All are residents of Port Perry, Ont., north of Oshawa, and all became seriously ill after devouring a mysterious stash of treats found one evening under a tree in Poplar Park.

Now the culprit has been identified: A batch of homemade, marijuana-laced muffins and cupcakes, baked by a teen for a party while his parents were away, and then abandoned.

All the canine victims recovered. But when word of the March 23 poisonings first spread, there was considerable alarm.

In Toronto's High Park last summer, several dogs became ill and two died after dining on bread soaked with ethylene glycol, found in antifreeze.

And in 2004, also in Toronto, more than a dozen dogs running around Withrow Park were sickened, one fatally, after eating hot dogs laced with carbofuran, a toxic insecticide.

The Port Perry episode was less sinister.

Durham Regional Police said Friday that tips from the public led them to a home near Poplar Park, where an 18-year-old confessed to having hosted a couple of parties while his parents were on vacation and to enhancing the festivities with some illicit baked goods that he jettisoned before his parents' return.

The episode involved less criminal intent than stupidity, police said, citing the teen's remorse and willingness to apologize to the dogs' owners.

So while the baker may be in the doghouse for now, at least with his parents, no charges will be laid.