Print This Article!


The proposed Sedro-Woolley “Bark Park” has created a bit of controversy where many never imagined it could exist.

I’m a minority in my neighborhood because we’re one of the few households that doesn’t have a dog. As quite a number of them bark during most nights, I have to ask myself a couple of simple questions: Would they still bark as much if their owners took them to an enclosed park for a run? Would this extra exercise allow these dogs, as well as nearby neighbors, to get some needed sleep at night?

Councilman Ted Meamber surveyed more than 35 residents surrounding Bingham Park, the original location proposed by city staff. He said the majority of these folks said they didn’t want a dog park nearby.

Granted I live on the other side of town from Bingham, but I don’t understand all the fuss.

Since this park is intended for use by the entire city, wouldn’t it have been more scientific to take a poll of more residents than nearby neighbors?

I’m assuming the park would be closed at night, therefore eliminating local neighbors’ worries of interrupted sleep.

With about 10,000 residents in Sedro-Woolley, I would think at least half of those have one or more dogs.

Every dog park I’ve ever seen has been well-maintained by both dog owners and city staff members.

Owners usually follow the posted rules meant to keep them and their dogs safe. There would be plastic bags on hand for owners to pick up after their dogs — or risk the dirty looks of other park users.

I’ve never heard much commotion from these parks — the dogs are usually too busy running around in the large enclosed spaces playing with their owners or other canines.

Several Council members said they were not opposed to the idea of a dog park, but questioned having it at Bingham Park.

If I were a nearby neighbor, I’d welcome the added presence of dogs and their owners each day. I’m assuming this would keep criminal activities at bay in the neighborhood and encourage people to use a park that up to this past year looked more abandoned than frequently used.

To quiet the negative reaction, some Council members proposed having it at Riverfront Park — since there are no nearby neighborhoods.

The problem with this, according to City Attorney and Supervisor Eron Berg, is that particular location floods. So, city staff would need to tear down the fencing each time a flood is predicted and then put it back up.

The other solution would be to only have the park available in the summer months. There again, why even bother if it’s only going to be available for three or four months?

To me, these options are a monumental waste of tax dollars.

I’d also argue if city officials are trying to give residents a central location and attract visitors to our city, wouldn’t a dog park located adjacent to Highway 20 be a key asset?

Bingham Park seems like the perfect location.