Seattle has one of America's best park systems. For dogs, it's one of the worst.
99% of Seattleites live a 10-minute walk from a park. 11.7% live that close to a dog park. This site is a sourced, reproducible public-data reference on Seattle's off-leash area (OLA) system — and what has gone wrong with it. Every chart links to its source; all underlying data is published openly and available for independent verification. The opinion page is clearly marked; everything else is factual.
Blue Dog Pond, 2009 → West Seattle Stadium, fall 2026
Fewer dog parks per capita than Portland
3.2×
Seattle 1.82 vs Portland 5.74 per 100K residents
Off-leash citations outside any OLA's 10-min walkshed
69.6%
2,035 of 2,925 park-named citations, 2014–2019 (PRR)
The reports, in short
Each report below reopens a specific claim Seattle Parks & Recreation has made about the OLA system, checks it against primary sources, and publishes the data behind the check. In order:
Part I — The Gap.
Seattle has added one net dog park since 2009. The city's population grew 34% over the same window. Per-capita, Seattle runs at one-third of Portland and San Francisco's OLA density.
Enforcement.4,803 off-leash citations (2014–2019). Six of the top ten cited parks have zero designated OLA. The empirical pattern is simple: citations cluster where OLAs aren't, or where the OLA that exists is too small to matter.
Budget.
SPR's total budget has roughly tripled since 2018 to $507M proposed. The dedicated OLA line peaked at 0.064% of SPR's total in 2018 and has been smaller in percentage terms ever since.
Opinion & Recommendation.
Author's policy recommendation: a time-zoned shared-use model for existing parks (NYC-style off-leash hours), with enforcement redirected to clean-park compliance. Six principles, three opinions, and seven steel-manned counterarguments — all signed.
All underlying data lives in the GitHub repo under /data. Plain CSVs; no database, no build step, no login required. Download any file, run your own numbers, and tell us if we got something wrong.
This site favors explicit methodology over headline-friendly numbers. Every derived number on every page links back to its underlying CSV and, where applicable, to the script that produced it. The master reference is METHODOLOGY.md — the "show your work" index. A few caveats readers should also carry:
Walkshed (now network-based). Previously a straight-line estimate of ~33% of residents; replaced April 2026 with a proper network-distance analysis: 11.7% of Seattle residents live within a 10-minute walking path of an OLA, computed via scripts/compute_walkshed.py (osmnx against Seattle's full OSM walk network) and scripts/population_coverage.py (2020 Census block-group overlay, area-weighted). SPR's published 2.5-mile standard covers 76.6%.
Peer-city OLA counts differ in definition. Seattle counts only fully-fenced dedicated OLAs; Portland includes unfenced voice-control areas; Vancouver BC includes time-restricted shared-use areas. Direct comparison requires caveats.
OLA-specific budget. SPR's Park District "Maintaining Parks & Facilities" line funds both OLAs and P-Patch community gardens and is not broken out. The $100K/year Cycle 1 figure is OLA-only because SPR stated it publicly; Cycle 2 figures are combined.
Dog population. Triangulated from three independent sources: ~26,700 active dog licenses (Seattle Open Data, hard floor implying ~90–135K actual), an AVMA-derived demographic estimate of ~248,900 (364,627 Seattle households × 45.5% dog-owning × 1.5 dogs/household), and the SPR 2023 Expansion Study range of 187K–400K. The site uses 150,000 as a conservative floor for per-dog math; see Part I methodology for the full triangulation.
AI disclosure
This site was built by Claude, Anthropic's AI assistant. The underlying data — public records requests, SPR budget documents, census data, peer-city research — was collected by the author. The author reviewed the output before publication. The editorial reflects his personal views.
Corrections and contributions welcome
We stand behind this work and publish every source so it can be verified, disputed, or improved. If you find an error — a wrong number, a stale figure, a methodological flaw, or a better primary source — we want to know. Known gaps where outside help would be especially useful: current dog-population estimates, per-OLA usage data, SPR's internal budget split between OLAs and P-Patches, and off-leash enforcement records after October 2019. File an issue on GitHub (preferred — corrections stay public and auditable) or email [email protected]. The site will be updated and the change noted.