Comments on: Oxbow Regional Park

By: Phyllis

Phyllis — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:15:51 +0000

I live in the SW Portland area. I have two kids; a teenager and a preschooler. I purposefully drive to Blue Lake park and now to Oxbow SPECIFICLY because they ban animals, dog in particular! I pay the park fees gladly for the opportunity to put down a picnic blanket, without worry of dog poop; next to a shady tree without the smell of dog urine. I PAY . I DRIVE THE EXTRA DISTANCE.

I think if you want to take your dog to a nice outdoor area , you have a great opportunity to run a fee based business. Based on all the pro-dog-in-the-park comments, it would be a booming business. It sound like there is a need and a demand for it. I'm sure both the dogs and their owners would enjoy a dog APPROPRIATE area in which to recreate.

By: Dima

Dima — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 16:09:30 +0000

If people smoked, the forest might catch on fire, and plus who would want to see or smell somebody smoking every time they go out of their tent. And dogs, who knows maybe a dog could get lost ,or eat a deer, or pee on somebody's tent, that would'nt have been a pretty site, or steal somebody elses food. Each rule has an explanation. And rules are made to keep people safe and happy so just go with the flow. And your comment ,(and pretty soon no walking on dirt trails to deter erosion, and no breaking wind because it adds to the ozone layer deficiency.) thats just overreacting.

By: pamela

pamela — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 02:53:22 +0000

What a great article! thank you so much for posting it. I share the same views and concerns. It really helps when you make those videos so i can get a clear picture of the park im visiting!! Thank you, and Take Care!! :]

By: Terri Hansen

Terri Hansen — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:18:42 +0000

Oxbow is a protected wildlife preserve along the wild and scenic Sandy River, and the dog ban is solely to protect its wildlife and is not a negotiable issue. Oxbow is a campground, too, so regarding the smoke issue families with asthmatic family members that react to smoke should avoid it. Smoke from campfires is as dangerous to the lungs as other smoke wafting through the air. Native Americans occasionally use the park too, for Salmon Ceremonies (Oxbow hosts the Salmon People one one week-end each year but use the park on their own, too), and then you smoke of sage, cedar and sometimes sweetgrass wafts through the air.

By: schrecv

schrecv — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:34:10 +0000

Lance,

Thanks for your comment, and thanks for reading my article. I respect and appreciate your difference in opinion, and I'm sure there are many who would agree with you. I was just going to post it, and let other folks comment, because I like to avoid political discussions on a family site. However, I suppose I asked for trouble by expressing my opinions, and you deserve a response. :)

Concerning the dog issue, I don't necessarily think there should be an outright ban on dogs in the entire park (I just reread what I wrote). I was simply glad there was a ban on dogs in the beach area (not stated as clearly as I would have liked). I bet it was fine at one point to have your dog on that beach and most likely, bad owners ruined it for everyone.

Believe it or not, I'm a dog lover - had one pretty much my whole life. For the Oxbow beach area, I think the rule is a good one, especially with how crowded it can get. Also, please note that this is coming from a dad whose (small) kids have been knocked over by unleashed dogs on several occasions. Therefore, I'm obviously a bit biased.

I don't think we'd ever agree on the smoking issue. I grew up with a smoker (my dad smoked cigars!), and I believe our exposure to smoke growing up led to a host of health problems for my brother and sisters.

The dangers of 2nd hand smoke are well documented, and innocent children should not have to be exposed to others' smoke. This is so painfully obvious to most people, and that's why it's banned in Portland parks, schools, and public buildings.

Frankly, I find most smokers are very considerate about this issue. I think they don't like the ban, but they also know they shouldn't smoke around kids.

Vince Schreck, Ed.D.
Instructional Designer, Portland State University
Editor: Portland Family Adventures
www.pdxfamilyadventures.com

By: Lance

Lance — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:56:42 +0000

You want no dogs and no smoking, and pretty soon no walking on dirt trails to deter erosion, and no breaking wind because it adds to the ozone layer deficiency. Give me a break. I think that if you wants a special area set aside for those that choose to smoke (which I do not by the way) or have a dog (which I do), then mabye what you really want is your own private island where you can dictate the actions of others. It's a State Park. Smokers should be considerate and dog owners liable for their pets. We don't need more laws telling us what we may and may not do.

By: schrecv

schrecv — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:00:06 +0000

Thanks for your comment Mary. For obvious reasons, I spend a great deal of time at parks. Since my kids have been knocked over numerous times by \"friendly\" dogs, and I've personally seen MANY irresponsible owners with their dogs around kids (even in dog-friendly Portland), I think keeping dogs away from kids is a good thing, especially around playground equipment. Dogs just like to play too much. There will be incidents and problems, even if owners are careful.

That said, I think it's a bit unrealistic and/or unfair to dog owners if ALL park space is off-limits to dogs. I think the obvious solution is giving parks special areas (away from kids) dedicated to open space for dogs. The problem with this is that there are always owners who break the rules. However, in Portland, it seems to work for the most part.

Vince

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:44:36 +0000

No dogs allowed in any of the Gresham/Metro parks. I think it is BS to not have any parks that allow dogs? I am surprised no dog groups have questioned the legality of this. However the City of Portland is incredibly dog friendly and doesn't label most dogs owners as irresponsible.