February 4, 2011 in News, City

Dog park cleanup tackles weeds, burs

• Print
• Email
• Share

Christopher Anderson photoBuy this photo

Brittanies “Grace”, right, and “Elvis” wait for a run at the SpokAnimal Dog Park at High Bridge Park on Friday, Feb. 4, 2011, during a volunteer weed eradication effort. Houndstongue is abundant in the area and leaves small hooked seeds in any animal fur that comes in contact. Owner, Phyllis Jessen, had to spend some time pulling the seeds out of the dogs to prevent spreading the weed before heading home.
(Full-size photo)(All photos)

Fencing at Spokane’s new dog park is complete, but patrons have discovered a prickly new problem. Burs.

The burs, which grow on a weed called Houndstongue, get stuck in dogs’ coats and are difficult to remove, sometimes requiring hours of extra grooming.

A group of volunteers gathered at the SpokAnimal’s Dog Park at High Bridge Friday to pull the weeds and clean up some trash left from before the park opened.

“They are just a pest,” Rebecca Mack, development director at SpokAnimal C.A.R.E., said of the burs. “We’re trying to make it a more hospitable environment for their dogs.”

Despite being an annoyance to dogs and their owners, the burs are mostly harmless. No one noticed them until the park opened in January and dogs began getting the pesky burs stuck in their coats after running through the weeds. The burs pose a bigger problem for long-haired dogs.

Johanna Horning participated in the work party. She said her dogs love the park, but she has to brush them thoroughly before they get in the car or they’ll bring the burs home.

Her dog, Scooby, was covered in them from head to tail Friday.

“They’re helping clean up,” Horning joked. “They’re little vacuum cleaners.”

Luckily, Houndstongue is biennial and short-lived, so once removed, it won’t be back for a couple years, Mack said. The bur-bearing weeds are mostly located in the nine-acre large dog area, not in the separate small dog area.

Mack said Friday’s cleanup day was a good time for everyone.

“People are happy to come out and help,” she said. “Dogs are having a good time. People are having a good time. It’s great.”

The work party was originally scheduled for Feb. 19, she said, but they decided to begin tackling the problem earlier by scheduling an additional day. However, the Feb. 19 work party is still on.

“So many people are so interested in this park and waited so long it for it,” she said. “We want them to have a good experience.”

“This is a manageable problem, so let’s manage it.”

13 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  deacon46 on February 04 at 8:09 p.m.

  I hope my tax dollars are not paying for any of this…

• 

  Loudin on February 04 at 8:39 p.m.

  I hope my tax dollars are going to fund this; it’s something I’ll use…unlike Medicare or Social Security, which seem to be the only welfare entitlements that anti-tax blowhards support.

  BTW: The High Bridge/People’s Park area is a lawless, notorious part of Spokane. Open drug use, prostitution, public sex and transiency have made the entire area unsafe. Any public improvements that bring regular citizens back to this area…and ultimately, scare off the seedy types…is far cheaper than police patrols. The dog park can ultimately save us money; learn to think outside of the Tea Bag box…

• 

  SPOKANITE on February 04 at 10:14 p.m.

  Living near the area I greatly appreciate this addition to the park system. Bringing decent activity to Highbridge Park will only improve the safety and appeal of this area.

• 

  SK on February 04 at 11:16 p.m.

  Well said, Loudin!

• 

  Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 04 at 11:37 p.m.

  I remember seeing a sign (at a pet supply store? I forget where exactly) asking for donations to pay for the fence. If there were tax dollars involved, there probably weren’t many.

• 

  IdigSpokane on February 05 at 8:15 a.m.

  This is an awesome investment that will bring great appeal to this area. Spokane is behind the times in so many aspects, so it is always exciting to see this cool little city catching up. Great job Spokanimal and the City of Spokane!

  And give the “not with my taxes” load of garbage a rest already. If you don’t like taxes, get off the roads, stay off the sidewalks, get your kids out of the schools, and turn off your t.v.’s. TAXES as public investments are what make cool communities functional.

• 

  Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 05 at 8:55 a.m.

  ^ but don’t you see? If taxes fund something I personally don’t use, then it’s theft.

• 

  woamike on February 05 at 10:55 a.m.

  @ Idig and oneguy,

  Close, but no cigar.

  Is this to be a nation of order rooted in the rule of constitutional law or one that is controlled arbitrarily by whatever majority happens to be in power at a given time?

  I, like any other responsible citizen, have no problem whatsoever paying taxes to fund the legitmate functions of government whether or not I benefit from that service directly or not. Your implications that people don’t want to pay taxes because they don’t directly benefit from a given service or can’t see the wisdom in making our city “cool” or “functional” as you do are nonsense.

  Wake up to the fact that the country is broke. We have no money and are in hock up to our necks. The root cause of this is our elected leaders have spent money on things they had no business spending them on and we let them. And we continue to do so today. It is so easy to spend other people’s money on something you consider “worthy”. The end result of all these “worthy” expenditures is our country is broke and is in real financial jeopardy whether you realize it or not.

  Great, we now have a dog park (arguably not a legitimate responsibility of government) that a very few of our citizens will enjoy. While at the same time our roads (clearly a legitimate function of government) are falling apart.

  You may be elated about the dog park, I am not.

• 

  Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 05 at 12:29 p.m.

  “arguably not” also means “arguably yes.” We may have to agree to disagree on this. (Or you can just decide I’m stupid. I’m OK with that.)

  Besides, it looks like tax money was not at work here, so it’s moot.

• 

  SpokyDaBear on February 05 at 1:08 p.m.

  @ thatoneguy… so if taxes fund a street that you never drive on,, that’s theft too? Sorry, smelling moron patrol here.

• 

  woamike on February 05 at 1:11 p.m.

  @ guy

  “Besides, it looks like tax money was not at work here, so it’s moot”

  I don’t think that’s a true statement. Look closer.

  Again, my main point is not the dog park itself. The dog park in and of itself is not necessarily a “bad” thing. It’s that fact that we’re broke and spending money on things like dog parks is not a necessary, legitimate function of government.

  @ BS

  “So chill, dog-haters”

  That’s the best you got? Another “ends justify the means” person. BTW, I like dogs. Not that it matters or changes anything. . .

• 

  SpokyDaBear on February 05 at 2:13 p.m.

  Always the dogs get parks, what about cats?

  This Aryan discrimination needs to end.

  Buy a taco, support Los Gatos..

• 

  Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 05 at 6:53 p.m.

  My 8:55 a.m. post was sarcasm, based on attitudes I have seen expressed on other comment threads, here at the S-R website and elsewhere.

  My 12:29 p.m. post didn’t offer (at least I didn’t intentionally offer) any opinion about whether the government should be involved in dog parks. I said — at least, I tried to say — that it looked like tax dollars (which is what government lives on) were not involved, so the point of whether government should be involved was moot, because they were not involved. I may have been unclear; if so, sorry. I wasn’t trying to be.

  Over on the right side of this page, under “related articles”, I found a story from December (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/dec/08/board-set-ok-contract-high-bridge-dog-park/) which says that someone had donated $50,000 to pay for the fence & “other costs” of opening the park, whatever those might be. The article doesn’t mention how SpokAnimal got use of the land, but I can’t imagine it’s costing the city anything since it was just a wasteland to begin with.

  So pardon me, but I’m a little unsure now about what exactly we’re disagreeing on.

  If your position is “involvement in projects like this is not a legitimate function of government, but they were involved in it,” then my response is “OK, we disagree.”

  If your position is “government was not involved, but it wouldn’t have been a legitimate function of government if they had been,” then my response is “OK, but it doesn’t matter what any of us thinks because it didn’t happen.”

  If your position is “private individuals should not be donating $50K for a dog park when the city is broke,” (I don’t think that’s what you meant, but…?) then my response is, “it’s their money and they can do what they like with it.”

  If you meant something other than the options I’ve covered, then I’ll have to wait till I find out what that is before I decide what I think of it.