The two articles have conflicting views about whether or not the city should fund a dog park.
The article A Dog Park Benefits All states that dogs need room to run around and that it would benifit all residents. While the article No Dog Park for Muscatine contests that it would cause problems and that taxpayers should not fund such an expensive project. Both sides have points worth considering when making a decision, but while both sides make good arguements, I agree with A Dog Park Benefits All.

The article A Dog Park Benefits All makes some good points. One being the fact it would cause the dog-bite rate to shrink. It is a known fact that the more social an animal is, the less likely it is to lash out. Another reason as this article states is that it would also bring more people to the area, which is true since dog owners tend to look for areas with a place they can let their dog roam free. Although when the article talks about that it would lower the amount of dogs ending up in the pound, it might be a little off. It would help, but not make that big of an impact. Most of the time an owner gives a dog back because they did not realize the responsiblity or could not afford to take care of the dog. These reasons also lead to bad behavior more often than not …show more content…
For instance, A dog bark would be annoying and could cause some people to become mentally upset, but it would not disturb sleep because dog parks have certain hours they are open. For example, 8 am to 8 pm which would not disturb sleep for most people unless they wanted to sleep in. One point that is easy to argue it that the article says that taxpayers should not have to pay for something that only dog owners would use. Taxpayers pay for a lot of stuff they never use. For instance taxpayers funded Mount Rushmore, but a good portion of the population has never seen it in person, and that does not provide any service other than