Hamilton Park Dog Park Mayhem

Submitted by idankflip t3_10wwl6v in jerseycity

This past week just the latest victim in a long line of people and dogs subjected to repeatedly problematic dogs and, more accurately, owners was bitten and sustained a serious injury. The dog in question is only one well known example that is uncontrollable by its apathetic owner. Ask any Hamilton Park dog owner and they can likely name a half dozen dogs this could have been.

My question is what will it take for these people to realize they’re endangering everyone around them, opening themselves up to litigation and criminal liability, and putting the life of their own dog on the line?

20

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

mickyrow42 t1_j7q4hop wrote

literally zero helpful information for others in context of what you're trying to warn about. well done.

126

reddit-account-user t1_j7q84a2 wrote

I was gonna let my dog bite everyone but then I read this post and changed my mind

51

someguyfromnj t1_j7prpjg wrote

Lots of big words to simply say “some dog owners suck.”

27

beat_it_PSEG t1_j7rzlun wrote

And some dogs.

1

someguyfromnj t1_j8dfi5m wrote

Look I get it, some dogs might appear to be evil but the reality is all of these "bad," behaviors are learned. At the end of the day, the owner is responsible.

Replace the word "dog," with "child," and now almost 99% of people will agree that bad children tend to come from bad habits and poor discipline - unfortunately a sign of bad parenting.

2

jaylen_browns_beard t1_j7poroq wrote

Personally I don’t bring my dogs to dog parks in jc area. The risk drastically outweighs any supposed benefits IMO. I’m not a lawyer but IMO you accept a certain level of liability by entering a dog park. It sounds like people know all of these dangerous dogs go there yet they consistently bring their own dogs back I’d recommend avoiding the dog park rather than asking when bad owners will realize they are putting others in danger because that’s not a realistic ask unfortunately

22

natespbr t1_j7qbly9 wrote

this reads like a copypasta

22

kevstev t1_j7r9a8a wrote

This post has some big NextDoor energy.

17

michael_scarn17 t1_j7pvatc wrote

I find the dog park at Van Vorst to be way worse than Hamilton park in regards to aggressive dogs. Never had an issue with Hamilton.

13

Lowkeylowthreadcount t1_j7q0e1d wrote

As someone who stopped bringing their dogs to van vorst I agree. It’s too small. All the dog parks downtown are just too small to accommodate how many people have dogs and rely on a dog park to exercise their dog. At a certain point, van vorst gets so full that it’s actually pointless to even have dogs in there. It’s very very stupid.

10

jaylen_browns_beard t1_j7qrk94 wrote

I don’t think the city should be building more dog parks because people shouldn’t rely on dog parks for their dogs exercise since they are an irresponsible way to exercise your dog. The real issue IMO is how many people depend on these parks (and advocate for more) while completely ignoring the risks. Any experienced dog trainer or vet in an urban area will tell you to avoid dog parks for a variety of reasons.You cannot control others animals no matter how wells yours is trained and bad owners will continue bringing their dogs.

14

mookybelltolls t1_j80qrv7 wrote

You are absolutely correct. They should be 1/2 acre minimum. None would be preferable. The City is designing a park in the old courthouse space and I, and many others, would appreciate your sending a note to the Mayor's Office. He is Steven Fulop.

1

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j7roiqx wrote

And that leaves what, illegally letting your dog off leash elsewhere in that park or in some other park?

Honestly, 'dog licenses' should mean the owner has qualified to own a dog by passing a training knowledge test and posting a liability bond. (Don't get me started on 'parenting licenses')

−2

jaylen_browns_beard t1_j7sffal wrote

no the alternative is training your dog to walk on a leash. If you have a high energy breed it is your responsibility to find ways to accommodate your dog rather than put them at risk in a dog park. Whether that is through daily training sessions or other enrichment is up to you. There are plenty of alternate options to dog parks.

And yeah I shared that concept on dog licenses in another comment I agree in theory I just don’t think it is realistic for another 5 or 10 years

5

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j7smien wrote

I'm sure you have observed that most dogs you see on the street aren't trained at all, never mind trained to do intensive exercise on the leash. Nearly 25 years ago there were huge battles at the Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association meetings between the people who wanted a dog park versus the people who insisted on continuing to use the entire park as their dog run, creating a physical and health hazard for everyone else.

I have highly intelligent friends and relatives who seem utterly unable to train their badly behaved dogs no matter how well meant they are. My brother-in-law is training his young dog to steal shoes, by a bribing him to return them with a treat!

Another relative insists (after his Portuguese Waterdog bit me) that his aggression is an innate prey instinct. My unsaid response is that back in the day when dogs worked for a living, a dog that was uncontrollably aggressive or otherwise untrainable was put down and removed from the canine gene pool instead of coddled and enabled as a pampered pet.

3

jaylen_browns_beard t1_j7sps6e wrote

That argument is not being made anymore though. It’s illegal to let your dogs off leash in the park and even if there was no dog park it wouldn’t be allowed. I agree a bigger effor should be made to enforce it

I think we agree that most people are ill equipped to effectively train their dog, but I don’t understand why you think dog parks are an ok alternative. They are very dangerous and not something the city should be encouraging or funding

3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j7sykv8 wrote

Essentially I believe that dog parks are a better alternative than off leash dogs everywhere, which was the norm before there were dog parks.

The very early morning hours are not when I'm in the park but I have heard that there are still people who run their dogs off leash then, free to crap and pee wherever they want. Back in the good old days when I had a toddler, I watched a guy let his dog crap just feet from the unfenced playground and walk away...

2

jaylen_browns_beard t1_j7uf89f wrote

I’m trying to tell you that the city has changed drastically since 25 years ago and that stance is quite outdated. Your first sentence is silly because you’re making the assumption that things will go back to the way it was which is not true. People would call the cops if there was a number of unleashed dogs or uncontrolled dogs. Owners are also more receptive. The only time I’ve ever seen an off leash dog outside of the dog park i simply asked the owner to leash their dog and they did - it is not complicated or difficult. Dog parks encourage off leash dogs by giving bad owners a place to do it. This ultimately results in more harm and violence. Your stance just seems quite ill informed and based on personal feelings about the dog owners you have come in contact with

3

mookybelltolls t1_j80re61 wrote

Blecher those people will do that anyway. The more compliant folks in a dog run do not want those dogs in a pen with theirs. I really do not understand why we think parks should be dog toilets.

1

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j81844f wrote

>I really do not understand why we think parks should be dog toilets.

"We" don't, but this battle has been going on a long time. The people who passionately argued against dog-free zones and dog parks insisted that there was no reason why 'we can't all just get along and share', when that meant they and their dogs could do whatever they wanted and we had to watch out for both aggressive dogs and where we sat or stepped.

I love dogs, but I've made the choice not to have one because I am not willing to put in the time commitment required for being a responsible owner. Unfortunately this does not seem to stop many, many dog owners.

1

Jahooodie t1_j7q3d6d wrote

Is it stupid, or does everyone need to advocate for better services? Why aren't we demanding more parks like Van Vorst be built in the area as density skyrockets?

5

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j7q48f5 wrote

Because parks take money and time, and most of JC is people who plan to leave for someplace else in a few years. They want to see a return on tax dollars quicker.

Same reason most don’t care about schools. They’ll move to the burbs before their kids need schools.

9

Jahooodie t1_j7qhyty wrote

I mean, this is the real reason why "LUXURY RENTAL ONLY HOUSING" secretly destroys communities and give developers ever increasing power, BUT ANYWAY HOWS THE WEATHER

7

pixel_of_moral_decay t1_j7qkwpy wrote

Oh I agree.

Encourage transient populations to just view the neighborhood as a temporary home isn’t good for the area. It’s profitable to landlords who cater to this market.

1

DirectorBeneficial48 t1_j7qiztp wrote

Sure, they're nice and all. What empty block would you like to have a park built on here in downtown JC? The good news for dog parks is that they're very popular amenities for LUXURY BUILDINGS to have. I can think of three at Newport, two in Harsimus Cove and one over by Zeppelin.

5

Lowkeylowthreadcount t1_j7qerxp wrote

Because this city is run by morons who are corrupt and don’t care. Aside from the fact that things like that take a ton of time. They’d rather build high rises instead of buying out plots of land to make into parks. Though I will say, for how stupid van vorst dog park is, liberty state park is right there. It’s very underutilized and I’m happy to go there with my dogs and have some peace and fucking quiet.

3

moobycow t1_j7qa510 wrote

I guess I just don't see what people expect the city to be doing that they aren't doing. It doesn't own a bunch of land to make parks DT and it is getting some givebacks to get parks when the opportunity arises while also trying to require affordable housing, which lowers what else you can ask for.

There's a new park on Cole, one on 8th between Grove and Marin. There will be at least open space in the Shorite development. The Newport Green area is relatively new. They're putting something behind City Hall. Morris Sq is new. The area around the Colgate Clock is finally starting to open up.

Many of the big buildings also come with small dog parks.

2

robin_tern t1_j7qbhv7 wrote

The parks you mention are a pittance and nowhere near what is typical in other dense cities.

Robin.

1

moobycow t1_j7qgytn wrote

OK, that's not a proposal. Where is the land and money coming from for new parks DT that are the size of VVP?

What, exactly, are you expecting the city to do? Buy and raze a block for a new park?

8

BerryFit3491 t1_j7tewu2 wrote

Where do you go to exercise dogs if not the dog parks?

1

mookybelltolls t1_j80s34i wrote

Berry you walk your dog on leash. On your days off you take him to somewhere like Mills reservation, or Liberty. Train him to retrieve. Get a Lyme Vax.

3

thebigodigo t1_j7pkqtq wrote

🫧

12

NappingBookworm t1_j7pxh60 wrote

Yeah this dog’s owner is famous for all the reasons OP described above

9

RadicalAppa t1_j7q9x8w wrote

Took a photo of that dog last year. I leave the park as soon as I see them arrive.

7

BubblesKCFan t1_j7rz4jj wrote

This is her owner. For the record, she is not vicious, nor is she dangerous. Trust me, she is far from the most dangerous dog in the park. Is she perfect? No, she isn't. But we have worked really, really hard on her reactive behavior and with a lot of success. And any regulars in the park would tell you I watch my dog with vigilance.

​

Trolling and playing keyboard coward is lame and, more importantly, dangerous. You have an issue? Call me at 201-978-1474, or there is no shortage of people in that park who know where I live. This constant posting with no context is absurd, it's a one-sided attack like the fool who posted 6 months ago. There is no shortage of authorities to report the behavior, and Reddit isn't one of them. How about communicating with owners instead of hiding behind your keyboard? None of this is productive and again, dangerous.

PS. My dog was not the biter or even the aggressor in a scuffle last night in the park that the OP may have been referring to.

​

Sincerely,

Shelley

4

njmids t1_j7rzjav wrote

Is it a pitbull?

3

mickyrow42 t1_j7sk20j wrote

don't be a breedist

0

njmids t1_j7sq9fi wrote

“Breedist”. I hope you’re joking.

1

mickyrow42 t1_j7sqtgu wrote

whats the joke? its a well established concept.

0

njmids t1_j7sqz4u wrote

That “breedist” is a real term. They’re dogs. Breeds act differently. That’s why we bred them.

2

mickyrow42 t1_j7ss696 wrote

ahh yes see you at the next rat baiting event.

1

mickyrow42 t1_j7sk5fw wrote

wow just straight up blasting your phone # and first name on the internet huh? good for you.

2

BubblesKCFan t1_j7sm4so wrote

I have had enough, and I mean it. If you have an issue, take it up with me instead of trolling or talking about my dog behind my back. No one really thinks about the unintended consequences of not communicating. This OP was garbage and attention-seeking.

8

fuhgettaboutitt t1_j7pkydr wrote

Tell me this is your first time meeting dumbasses without telling me this is your first time meeting dumb asses. I’ll let OP go first

12

thrillofit222 t1_j7rekfa wrote

Taking your dog to the dog park is optional. You assume the risk by choosing to go there. For many HP dog owners, the value of the dog park goes beyond just letting your dog play and exercise - it’s also a social opportunity to connect with others in the neighborhood.

Yes, there are untrained dogs who go there. Yes, there are owners who aren’t vigilant and have dogs who don’t meet the criteria to go to a dog park. However, choosing to go to the dog park is exactly that… a choice.

FWIW, my family’s experience with a dog attack in HP occurred OUTSIDE the dog park with a dog ON LEASH. The owner couldn’t control their dog, dropped the leash, and the dog attacked. This did not occur inside the dog park.

7

hardo_chocolate t1_j7rfc1v wrote

Word salad supreme. So what? You don’t like it? Move to Montclair.

3

naturalorange t1_j7qhsp6 wrote

Litigation civil or criminal maybe both. or maybe some therapy and/or a free dog training session

1

hopskipandjump000 t1_j7q0cea wrote

Elvis

0

BubblesKCFan t1_j7ua8vy wrote

This is trash and trolling. If you are naming names its trolling given that the dog park community is small. Have you spoken to the owner? If you have something to say, it to their face? The owner is responsible and works hard to work with the dog. Demonizing the dog and the owner isn't helpful to anyone. Enough, with the performative drama.

1

paul-e-walnts t1_j7pqnod wrote

I don’t get why people even have dogs in cities.

−16

jaylen_browns_beard t1_j7psnnd wrote

Pretty similar reasons to people that own them outside of cities.

15

paul-e-walnts t1_j7q1mj0 wrote

Compensating for not having children?

You understand living in a city is different environment than outside of one, yeah?

Highly dense neighborhoods don’t have to be covered in piss and shit. What a dream.

−7

jaylen_browns_beard t1_j7q7as3 wrote

I’m sorry that you don’t understand. I hope one day you’re able to see the value some humans and dogs get out of their relationships because it’s a great thing. Personally I would like to see dog ownership require licensing over a certain weight, particularly in urban environments, but I’m culturally aware enough to know that will not happen in jersey city. Additionally the dog rescue infrastructure isn’t set up to support the number of dogs they would need to with this solution so it’s not realistic and more dogs would end up suffering. It’s a difficult issue to solve. I’m curious what your solution is?

−1

originatorn t1_j7q99eh wrote

Licensing actually is required in JC for all dogs over 7 months. It's super easy and cheap, but most dog owners are unaware of the requirement or just don't care because there's no enforcement.

https://library.municode.com/nj/jersey_city/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CH90AN_ARTIIIDOOTAN_S90-12DE

https://www.jerseycitynj.gov/cityhall/health/division_of_animal_care___control

4

jaylen_browns_beard t1_j7q9wy4 wrote

I apologize for not being clear. I meant a qualification system in order to be eligible to own a dog. I don’t think the current system has much value

1

paul-e-walnts t1_j7qf6oo wrote

There isn’t an easy solution. But I would suggest stop treating dogs like people. They don’t belong in restaurants or stores. We shouldn’t use our money and space in the city to accommodate them.

People should understand a city is not an appropriate environment for a dog. Our sidewalks and green spaces shouldn’t be covered in shit and piss from these animals.

−2

jaylen_browns_beard t1_j7qiefc wrote

Treating dogs like people is very different from what your describing. Businesses can allow pets or disallow them, it is up to their discretion. A suggestion on what people should do is not a solution it’s merely a suggestion. Actionable legislation would be an example of a solution. However I don’t think that’s realistic since your views are pretty niche lol

5

paul-e-walnts t1_j7qoets wrote

No, it is treating dogs like people.

Guy, I came here to point out owning dogs in a city is dumb, not propose legislation. But if you insist, ok. Ban dogs and zero out spending on accommodating them. Instead, shift that spending on enforcing the ban.

2