Signatures 699 total
-
1
Name: Emilie Hansen on Apr 25, 2010Comments:Flag
-
2
Name: Robert J. Maloney on Apr 26, 2010Comments: The park is my home away from home. I own two Vizslas that need to run A LOT everyday. Cherry Creek is the only place in the entire metro area that isn't a tiny little fenced in dog park and now they want to make it one. This idea I keep reading that we are "misplacing hunting dog owners" is ridiculous. First, those people constitute maybe 1% of the people at the park and secondly, no one interferes with anyone who wants to train their dog. We can co-exist just fine. Leave this wonderful haven for dogs just the way it is!Flag
-
3
Name: Chris Greenwald on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
4
Name: Richard Galligan on Apr 26, 2010Comments: We do not want needless changes at the Cherry Creek Dog Park.Flag
-
5
Name: Vikki Hamilton on Apr 26, 2010Comments: The only thing that decreasing this park size to us park users will accomplish is to destroy the environment (it will look like the area that the horses reside in within 1 yr) due to overuse of the small area. It will decrease revenue by a very large amount-I will not pay extra $$ to put up fences. I will go to a community dog park/ant hill-postage stamp size that cost me 0$. Keeping the park as is, I will be happy to pay extra, give of my time and energy for upkeep, and help in any way I can. Otherwise, I'll stop using it. 00$ coming into the state parks.Flag
-
6
Name: Lynn Joffe on Apr 26, 2010Comments: It is unclear to me what political powers forced these changes. Clearly, there is a lot of information that is not being shared. Why is this issue being pushed? Who are the political players? The argument that the park has had a huge impact on the environment is not supported by any of the studies. This park has far less impact than the surrounding development and construction.Flag
-
7
Name: Mariesha Derkevorkian on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
8
Name: Mark Einhorn on Apr 26, 2010Comments: I have taken my dogs into the park for the last 16 + years. I am very mindfull of my dogs waste and pick up after him. It is pathetic that this boils down to revenue earned. Because 10,000.00 is earned every year should not be the determing factor for imposing ridiculous restrictions on the dog owners and their dogs. The amount of URINE and FECES that is produced by the horses is probably 10x's more than dogs do. The horses are kept where conditions are nothing more than cruel to the animal. Many a time during snowstorms I have said to my friends about the boarding condtions ( if you call them that) is horrific. perhaps the boarding manager shoul;d be out their with his horses as they freeze and are soaking wet when it rains. Perhaps you need not worry about the revenue being generated and save money by not buiding a BRICK display with a MONITOR in it, stop wasting money and treat our furry 4 legged friends with humanity. Control the waste, conditions and STENCH from the HORSES that is the real problem.Flag
-
9
Name: Lynn Burgess on Apr 26, 2010Comments: Individuals metro wide use cherry creek state park specifically for its openness. Limiting use down to 84 acreas will destroy the contact citizens have with the natural surroundings.Flag
-
10
Name: M.R. Wood on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
11
Name: Rex Bell on Apr 26, 2010Comments: Although I am not currently walking my dogs in the Cherry Creek dogpark, I would like to have that option in the future, and this land has been utilized as a dog park for years. No reason to change it, and especially fence it. Leave sleeping dogs lie! as it were. There is more than enough land in the state park to open up more area for sporting dogs to be trained.Flag
-
12
Name: Richard A. Frey on Apr 26, 2010Comments: We need to let this park alone.Flag
-
13
Name: Michele@mctcrest.com on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
14
Name: Carri King-Bussard on Apr 26, 2010Comments: I have been going to the dog park for the last 10 years. Going to the dog park with my three therapy dogs is a highlight of our day. It is also good therapy for me. Please leave the park as is in regards to total acreage. Since Denver and Aurora have a 3 dog limit in households, it makes no sense to limit the park experience to 2 dogs. I would be willing to pay additional fees to help maintain the dog park as well as volunteering an hour a month to pick up poop.Flag
-
15
Name: Jama Hare on Apr 26, 2010Comments: Please don't change Cherry Creek or Chatfield off leash dog parks.Flag
-
16
Name: Greg Voll on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
17
Name: Michael Demchak on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
18
Name: Jerry Dunn on Apr 26, 2010Comments: My two Labrador retrievers love Cherry Creek dog park, it is a unique area that allows for an off lease hike. It would be a large loss to have it's unique experience changed to a small pen area. I am strongly oppossed to the proposal reducing it's size. On a practical note, the revenue loss would be substantial. I know many other dog owners who only use the park for that reason.Flag
-
19
Name: Diane Sweet on Apr 26, 2010Comments: Please leave the dog park area as it is and provide some trash cans throughout the park for pet owners to dispose of their waste.Flag
-
20
Name: Shannon Becker on Apr 26, 2010Comments: This proposal is awful!Flag
-
21
Name: Anonymous on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
22
Name: Robert Hamilton on Apr 26, 2010Comments: All people can currently use this area. Why legislation against dogs and owners? This is misguided.Flag
-
23
Name: Deborah Clark on Apr 26, 2010Comments: The Cherry Creek Dog Park is a tremendous facility that enables so many people and their companions to enjoy the best Colorado has to offer. Better yet, when the park is filled with people and dogs it is filled with JOY. It would be a tragedy to loose such a shining example of Colorado's best.Flag
-
24
Name: Kamala Schuster on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
25
Name: Melody Mirbaba on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
26
Name: Deanna Rastetter on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
27
Name: Jodi Warter on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
28
Name: Bonnie Simendinger on Apr 26, 2010Comments: I agree to keep the present dog park that we can currently use. I do not want to pay extra money so that there are funds for a smaller enclosed dog park. I have been walking my dogs for 6 years at Cherry Creek State Park. Making the area smaller with limited access to the water will only increase the erosion of the banks. Also with limited access to the water, my dog likes to walk in the stream, so then it will be outside the bounderies for the enclosed area.Flag
-
29
Name: Chanida Thongplengsri on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
30
Name: Kathryn Demchak on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
31
Name: Erin Hauser on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
32
Name: Denise Flournoy on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
33
Name: Donald Flournoy on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
34
Name: Derek Bamonte on Apr 26, 2010Comments: Please keep as is.Flag
-
35
Name: Anonymous on Apr 26, 2010Comments: This park is the main reason why I plan on purchasing another state park pass. Changes to this park will reduce future pass purchases. Thank you.Flag
-
36
Name: Anonymous on Apr 26, 2010Comments: Dont change the park!!Flag
-
37
Name: Adria Ellerbrock on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
38
Name: Vince And Gina Famularo on Apr 26, 2010Comments:Flag
-
39
Name: Brian Triebelhorn on Apr 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
40
Name: Emily Sirota on Apr 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
41
Name: Karen Fox on Apr 27, 2010Comments: Please don't reduce the chatfield acreage either!Flag
-
42
Name: Tracy O'Brien on Apr 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
43
Name: Kathleen G Restow on Apr 27, 2010Comments: 11700 Meadowood Ln, Parker, CO 80138Flag
-
44
Name: Todd Droy on Apr 27, 2010Comments: 840 Monroe St. Denver, CO 80206Flag
-
45
Name: Heidi McLaughlin on Apr 27, 2010Comments: My husband and I take our two dogs to the Cherry Creek dog park 3-7 times each week. We were going to purchase a home in the area specifically because of the park but am now looking to purchase a home in Arvada as there is a big park by Standley lake. Open dog park acreage is the #1 determination for me as far as a property purchase, and I am planning to spend about $400K on a property. Closing the dog park would impact home prices negatively for people like us who are dedicated to the recreational facilities in the area for dogs.Flag
-
46
Name: Sereena Salzano on Apr 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
47
Name: Sereena on Apr 27, 2010Comments:Flag
-
48
Name: Amy Winter on Apr 27, 2010Comments: Please don't change parks to be only on leash. Dogs need to run in the city. There is already limited area.Flag
-
49
Name: Russell Hamilton on Apr 27, 2010Comments: It looks like the Park people are trying to justify their jobs. They are trying to fix what isn't broken.Flag
-
50
Name: Erica Bundy on Apr 27, 2010Comments: 2895 S Cherry way Denver, CO 80222Flag