ShareThis Page
Plum/Oakmont

Some Oakmont residents are barking about a dog park in Dark Hollow

Michael DiVittorio
| Tuesday, July 24, 2018, 4:39 p.m.

Several Oakmont residents would like to see Dark Hollow Park go to the dogs — particularly off-leash ones.

Some community members want borough officials to consider creating a dog park or off-leash area in the woods near Crystal Drive.

“We love our dogs like children and want to provide them with as many fun exercises and experiences as possible,” resident Jennifer Torpie said. “A dog park is the perfect way to provide that opportunity.”

Torpie has two large mutts around 65-75 pounds; Kaylee, 5, and Addie, 4. The family used to go to dog parks in San Antonio when they lived in Texas, and haven’t found a close place in Allegheny County.

“We have checked out a few dog parks around Pittsburgh, but we haven’t found a dog park that is close enough to visit often.”

Resident Dave Decker has a 12-year-old boxer he’d like to take to a dog park, but there may not be enough space available in the borough.

“It would be awesome if we could have a dog park and a pool, but there’s not a lot of land,” Decker said. “I don’t think it will happen. I would love to have it.

There are signs in Dark Hollow to remind dog owners to keep them on a leash and to clean up after them.

Borough Manager Lisa Cooper Jensen said dogs must be leashed at all times in the borough unless on their owners’ properties. She said no proposals for a dog park or off-leash area were submitted this year.

Oakmont recreation board member Ryan Ehrlich took notice of discussions about the topic on social networking site Nextdoor.com and supports having an off-leash area in Dark Hollow.

Ehrlich said he’s taken his dog Croix, a 13-year-old yellow Labrador, to the woods many times.

“The woods is a nice asset for dog walkers,” Ehrlich said.

He said some residents have voiced opposition to the dog park, and hopes there can be some kind of compromise.

“There needs to be some discussion about it and hear both sides,” Ehrlich said. “I think you need to think about what can be a policy realizing both of those groups are constituents in Oakmont, and both have a right to use that property. I think with some work and some conversations something can be put in place. I think we can come up with something better.”

The recreation board briefly discussed dogs at Dark Hollow last month.

Ehrlich said those talks did not amount to much, and he plans on bringing the issue up again when the board reconvenes in August. He said it may take a while before any proposal reaches council.

Recreation board chairman Tom Bland did not return calls seeking comment.

An ordinance that would have permitted dogs off-leash in Dark Hollow Park was presented to council in October 2014. Borough documents indicate it never went up for a vote.

Michael DiVittorio is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Michael at 412-871-2367, mdivittorio@tribweb.com or via Twitter @MikeJdiVittorio.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me