Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Gator Slayer

A DOG PARK!!!!!!!!!

75 posts in this topic

That's the first great expenditure from the Dedicated Funding Amendment. Oh don't forget there will be 11 people hired to manage those 7 "metro area" parks. All you who voted for this must be extremely proud. WOW will this improve our "quality environment." I can't wait to see what they suggest once they decide to get creative withthe spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused, are they building more parks? I know they already have a few around the cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was one small part of the bill, yes. People in the city voted too and now have another green place to take their dog and let them run. I see no problem with that. Its better than building condos on that land right? It also dedicated funding for the arts as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I hope to He%% that money (it's only a MILLION DOLLARS) comes from the Artsie Fartsie Fund.. No it's not better than building condos.. Condos are space efficient the tighter we can pack the citiots the less impact on wildlife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to disagree when you say "a small part of the bill.MN house file 297 is 1 million dollars to start.Then additionally the county/state has to match that amount two to one.That comes out to 3 million dollars to establish said doggie park.NOT SMALL AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!c63I wonder if we (tax payers)will have to pay out any law suits if a couple of these dogs get into a scuffle and someone gets bitten???c63

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess nobody in the city has a voice on the issue? I guess being a "citiot" I look at it in a different light. Im not saying that i would even go there, but its going to be used for lots of other stuff too. Environment is more than just parks in rural areas. The way I looked at it was that the more funding that could be sent to the environment the better. There will still be more funding for the environment than there was before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have as much of a problem with dog parks as I do with the arts part of it. Dog parks aren't new. I've taken my dogs there from time to time, but haven't been there in a while. It's cool to let them run their tails off. I don't know that it's worth millions, but I'd rather have that than another worthless sculpture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

II'd rather have that than another worthless sculpture.

OOOOhhhhhhh but you're going to get both..... Let's not lose sight of the fact that they just added 11 more people to the government teet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont get me wrong, I would have rather seen it go to stocking programs or wma's or something like that. I really do hope thats where the majority of the funds will go. But, they have the pleasure of trying to please everyone, which obviously will never happen. There will be things that some people think are riduculous but to others are important. Thats where the issue is. They really went accross a broad spectrum of people with this one and are trying to make everyone count. (they probably should have narrowed the reach or the bill down a little but it would have never passed like that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, just another bill with millions of pounds of pork attached to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were a lot of "important" people who sold this pig-in-a-poke to us saying that it would benefit the environment. Just like the lottery was supposed to. I would like to hear from them that this is the "greatest thing since sliced bread" for the outdoors person. CUZ THAT"S HOW THEY SOLD IT TO YOU!!!!!!!!! I obviously voted no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any of you drive up 169? You know the dog training/running/trial WMA on west side up by Milaca area? Is that worthless too? Just wondering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it cleaning up the waters?

Just wondering...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any of you drive up 169? You know the dog training/running/trial WMA on west side up by Milaca area? Is that worthless too? Just wondering...

sounds like another great well kept secret---governementally funded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at hf297 about the dog park and nowhere on there does it say anything about the funding from the amendment dollars.

The funding is from the parks and trails fund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

read it again. it says specifically the dedicated amendment monies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

e) No later than January 15, 2011, the chair of the Metropolitan Council must provide a program report along with any program recommendations to the house of representatives and senate committees with jurisdiction over environmental finance and, if such committees exist, the house of representatives and senate committees with jurisdiction over the allocation of constitutionally dedicated parks and trails funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is good news for us Citiots with Dogs!

Nothing but concrete around here for the most part ya know!.... smile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: BoxMN
Do any of you drive up 169? You know the dog training/running/trial WMA on west side up by Milaca area? Is that worthless too? Just wondering...

sounds like another great well kept secret---governementally funded

Let's see... its a WMA, that comes from stamp money, doesn't it?

BTW - I don't use this or the dog parks. But it is greenspace. Have you ever been to a "dog park"? I have, and there is wetlands and buffer strips in the one I am aware of. Hmmm, just wondering, but maybe that is better than asphalt and concrete or more urban or suburban sprawl. It depends upon how it is designed, but it just might be in an area(s) where it will help filter runoff.

I don't know there proposed areas, so can't say for sure. But since you guys don't either (or do you?) can you with 100% say it won't help with water quality? BTW, WMA's and parks and yes even dog parks harbor wildlife more than just the birds and deer we shoot in the fall. I guess maybe some of you don't think that parks of any sort are good for us cidiots...

...btw, I am not saying this would be my choice for spending the money, but can't say it is worthless venture and poor use of this $$ either.

Keep the flames coming at all who supported the amendment. I am sure you will regardless, and usually before the details are given, as usual. smile

edit - BTW, parks are specifically mentioned as one of the areas $$ will go to. So how is this in not keeping with the goal/task of the amendment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were a lot of "important" people who sold this pig-in-a-poke to us saying that it would benefit the environment. Just like the lottery was supposed to. I would like to hear from them that this is the "greatest thing since sliced bread" for the outdoors person. CUZ THAT"S HOW THEY SOLD IT TO YOU!!!!!!!!! I obviously voted no.

Voted no as well. Learned lessons with the lottery. I didn't trust them before the vote and they are living up to my expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally Posted By: Gator Slayer
There were a lot of "important" people who sold this pig-in-a-poke to us saying that it would benefit the environment. Just like the lottery was supposed to. I would like to hear from them that this is the "greatest thing since sliced bread" for the outdoors person. CUZ THAT"S HOW THEY SOLD IT TO YOU!!!!!!!!! I obviously voted no.

Voted no as well. Learned lessons with the lottery. I didn't trust them before the vote and they are living up to my expectations.

I kinda feel sorry for those that really believed this money was going to go where they were told it was going to go. A person has high ideals and believes that the govt wants to follow the same ideals and then finds later that they were literally scammed, bummer.

I used to have those high ideals and believed in politicians, but looking back and comparing words to actions, they just don't match up. Tend to take most of what they say with grain or 20 of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess maybe some of you don't think that parks of any sort are good for us cidiots...

...btw, I am not saying this would be my choice for spending the money, but can't say it is worthless venture and poor use of this $$ either.

Keep the flames coming at all who supported the amendment. I am sure you will regardless, and usually before the details are given, as usual. smile

edit - BTW, parks are specifically mentioned as one of the areas $$ will go to. So how is this in not keeping with the goal/task of the amendment?

What details do you need BOX, it's all right there in the house bill. Any of my facts wrong?

I see no one mentions the 11 additional Governement employees who will oversee the parks.

No one mentions the 2 million additional dollars out of our pockets (County and State comitment)

If you want parks, take back the ones you have from the gangbangers. I can't wait for the first report of someone's pocket dog getting eaten by a gangbanger's rottie or Am Staff. "and the gov did nothing to protect my dog." $$$$$ I've been to a couple dog parks, weren't much more than fenced in football fields (easier upkeep).

50% of our waters are polluted (Or so we were constantly told before the scam, err I mean election) and we're spending the first 3 million on a dog park.

I don't see how taking land within the city and making it off limits helps slow sprawl... seems to me it would make it worse by taking it out of development.

Like I've said the supporters MUST be proud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is everyone who is against the Dog Park monies coming from the new clean water amendment not see how the a Dog Park could help keep waters cleaner?

The Off Leash Dog Area (OLDA) that was recently built in Minnewashta Regional park should help keep the waters of Lake Minnewashta cleaner. How? Folks used to walk their dogs on a walking trail that ropes along the shoreline of the lake. In theory, making it very easy for the dog's waste to wash into the lake. Sure, dog owners are supposed to clean up the doo doo from their dogs, but it's hard to contain the pee. Now most folks bring their dogs to the OLDA instead of walking the trails. The OLDA is not near the shoreline. Also the people visiting the OLDA police each other, so much more of the doo doo gets picked up, too.

This ONE Dog Park is helping us keep the areas water cleaner. I would like to know how the new proposed dog park doesn't help keep our waters clean. Does the new Dog Park include paving the ground and draining all the run-off into our lakes and streams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0



  • Posts

    • And if the leftists get lucky at the convention?     You aren't against human rights, like income, health care, equality, LBGTQ rights, and stuff like that, right?  
    • You scale them, no?
    •   So, why bother with locks?  Honest people won't take your stuff even if the door is unlocked.   I am in the camp that I want to make it at least a little difficult for the crooks.   Especially since three people in our family have had their houses burgled and stuff taken.
    • The result right now is not good. One way or the other the toilet needs flushing
    • Mostly I talk about this with respect to the nonsense about multiple parties or no parties some on here seem so fond of.      It is all a fantasy.   Some new party could possibly take over an existing party, like Trumpism did, or even replace it like happened back in the day but in the end there will be two parties.     Perhaps a parlimentary system with multiple parties would be better than what we have, but, in my opinion, you can't get there from here.  It's like the calls for a Constitutional Convention.   Do you guys seriously think that could happen, and that the result would be good?  
    • I haven't gone up the old Grade, but do head to Outing via Emily and NE from there, and it is really nice. Hardly any roads to go across and little to no ditch riding. I have got to try the Old Grade, as I would think it is like that. We grouse and duck hunt up there now and then, but haven't lately. Great place with lots of public land and opportunity.
    •   But yet I countered with an actual study but you think your own speculative based opinion is better. OK then.     How very hypocritical.      I would end the discussion after that last statement too.
    •     I can guess it is not for humanitarian reasons.   Mexico has about had their fill of fighting the drug war for us, and are moving towards decriminalization.  If California legalizes weed, this would be enough to tip the scales in favor of decriminalization for Mexico.       For years now, Mexico has paid an extraordinarily high price in lives and social disruption for Washington’s insistence that North America’s drug problem be tackled south of the border, where the drugs are grown and transported, rather than primarily in clinics and halfway houses at home to treat the medical and psychological issues of users. Mexican President Pena Nieto.   Successive administrations, starting with President Nixon, have demanded ever-tougher border controls, aerial-spraying programs, and DEA-backed anti-“cartel” operations in Mexico. All those efforts and sacrifices have been for naught. U.S. residents currently export up to $29 billion in cash to Mexican traffickers each year to buy marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines and heroin.   Forcing that trade underground has taken a terrible toll on Mexico in terms of violence, corruption and social upheaval. Since 2006, when President Felipe Calderón ordered his military to join the “war” on drug traffickers, Mexico has lost about 200,000 lives and 30,000 more have disappeared,dwarfing the civilian death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq over that period.   The majority of those killed and disappeared were victims of criminal organizations, but human rights organizations also report soaring rates of human rights violations, including torture and killing, committed by security forces.   The 2016 Global Peace Index, prepared by the Institute for Economics and Peace, estimates the total cost of violence in Mexico at $273 billion, or 14 percent of GDP, with no end in sight. Direct fiscal costs of fighting the war on crime were about $32 billion in 2015 alone. Yet the United States has contributed only about $2.5 billion since fiscal 2008 to Mexico’s drug war, under the so-called “Merida Initiative.” Mexico’s pain shows no signs of easing. The New York Times reported in December that Mexico suffered more than 17,000 homicides in the first 10 months of last year, the highest total since 2012. “The relapse in security has unnerved Mexico and led many to wonder whether the country is on the brink of a bloody, all-out war between criminal groups,” it said.    
    •   But In Del's defense, he only does this on things he would like to stay as is. When you are talking about legislation he is in favor of then it is the law of the land and can't be changed. When it is something that he dislikes, it can and should be changed.
  • Our Sponsors