MAY 2026
Peer Cities

How eight peer cities run their off-leash systems.

Per-city detail on Portland, San Francisco, Vancouver BC, Washington DC, Minneapolis, New York, Austin, and Boise. Counting methodology, governance model, funding mechanism, operating rules, and at least one design choice per city that Seattle has not used. The aggregate comparison is in Part I and Budget Finding 08; this page carries the per-city detail and primary sources.

Methodology caveat Peer-city off-leash-area (OLA) counts use different definitions and are not directly comparable without adjustment. Seattle counts only fully-fenced dedicated OLAs; Portland includes unfenced voice-control areas; Vancouver BC includes time-restricted beach and field access; San Francisco mixes fenced and voice-control zones; Austin's headline figure is inflated by large natural-area voice-control sites. Each city section below flags the relevant definition. The underlying data, with both raw and adjusted figures where applicable, is in data/peer-cities.csv.

Peer 01Portland, OR — the voice-control model

Portland Parks & Recreation operates a mix of fenced and unfenced off-leash sites, with unfenced voice-control areas making up the majority. The city's own page describes "over 30 dog off-leash areas — both fenced and unfenced"; Trust for Public Land (TPL) ParkScore 2025 counts 38. The 5.74 / 100K and 3.2× per-capita figures throughout this site use the TPL count for apples-to-apples comparison; the fenced-only / voice-control mix is the methodological difference from Seattle's fenced-only count.

30+ designated off-leash areas
3.2×
Portland's per-capita rate is 3.2× Seattle's, using each city's own published count.
Most are unfenced
voice-control
The majority of Portland's 30+ sites operate on voice-control rather than fencing.
Voter-funded
2020 Levy
Renewed by voters in 2020 at ~$47M/yr citywide; no dedicated OLA line item within the levy.

Governance

City-run by Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R). Volunteer advocacy runs through long-standing groups such as DOG PAC (Dog Owners Group Political Action Committee); there are no formal co-management MOUs at the scale of Seattle's Citizens for Off-Leash Areas (COLA) or DC's Friends-of-park system. Day-to-day maintenance is PP&R staff.

Funding

PP&R general fund plus the voter-approved Parks Local Option Levy (renewed November 2020, five-year, ~$47M/yr citywide). A dog-park-specific line item is not broken out. Dog license fees flow to Multnomah County Animal Services rather than to PP&R, so license revenue does not fund dog parks.

Access standard

Portland uses the general half-mile / 10-minute walk standard for parks overall. There is no published OLA-specific walkshed standard. Because the count is larger and many areas are unfenced voice-control, a typical Portland dog owner has multiple legal options within a 10-minute walk.

Comparison with Seattle Portland's framework accepts shared-use friction — people and dogs co-mingling off-leash under voice control — that Seattle policy has not incorporated since the 1997 OLA ordinance. A Portland dog owner reports ~30+ legal options for off-leash access; Seattle reports 14 fully-fenced OLAs. A Seattle analogue would be adopting time-zoned or voice-control access in a designated subset of existing parks, which is the approach proposed on the opinion page.

Peer 02San Francisco, CA — DPAs inside a federal-lands dispute

San Francisco Rec & Park's own catalog lists 36 designated Dog Play Areas (DPAs), a mix of fully fenced enclosures and voice-control zones within larger parks; TPL ParkScore 2025 counts 42 dog parks in SF using its own methodology. The 5.03 / 100K and 2.8× per-capita figures throughout this site use the TPL count for apples-to-apples comparison with other peers. Golden Gate Park alone contains four DPAs. SF's dog-park history is also the most heavily litigated of any peer: the GGNRA (federal) versus city-level dispute over Fort Funston, Ocean Beach, and Crissy Field off-leash access has run for nearly two decades.

36 Dog Play Areas across the city
2.8×
SF's per-capita rate is 2.8× Seattle's; federal GGNRA lands are off-limits for off-leash use.
Four DPAs in Golden Gate Park alone
4
SF has sited DPAs inside large flagship parks; Seattle has no OLA inside Green Lake, Volunteer, Discovery, or Lincoln.
Capital via voter GO bonds
$487M
Prop B 2020 Health & Recovery Bond — park capital funded by voters rather than annual operating appropriations.

Governance

City-run (SF Rec & Park). SFDOG (San Francisco Dog Owners Group) is the long-standing volunteer advocacy org and participates in the Dog Advisory Committee. Rules require picking up waste, keeping dogs under owner control, professional dog-walkers limited to eight dogs per person, and dogs must be licensed and vaccinated.

Funding

SF has no mandatory dog license, so license revenue does not fund parks. Operating costs sit inside the Rec & Park general fund plus the Prop C Open Space Fund (property-tax set-aside). Capital comes from GO park bonds — Prop A 2000, Prop B 2012 ($195M), and Prop B 2020 ($487M). Additional capital comes through philanthropy via the SF Parks Alliance.

Access standard

SF uses TPL's 10-minute walk standard for parks generally; SF ranks #6 on TPL ParkScore with near-100% of residents within 10-minute walk of any park. There is no OLA-specific walkshed.

Comparison with Seattle SF's defining complication is the GGNRA Dog Management Plan — the federal-lands restriction on off-leash access that Seattle does not have. SF's 36 DPAs exist in part because federal land is off-limits for off-leash use and the city built dedicated city-level alternatives. Seattle has no equivalent federal-lands complication.

Peer 03Vancouver, BC — the elected Park Board

Vancouver's Park Board is the only independently-elected parks body in any major Canadian city — seven commissioners elected by Vancouver voters, running parks independently of City Council. The Park Board passed the People, Parks, and Dogs: A Strategy for Sharing Vancouver's Parks in 2017, the most detailed OLA planning framework among the eight peer cities.

36+ off-leash areas, many time-zoned
3.0×
Vancouver's per-capita rate is 3.0× Seattle's; some sites shift status seasonally.
Voters elect the Park Board directly
7 seats
Only major Canadian city where park commissioners answer to voters rather than the mayor.
Dedicated OLA capital plan
~$2.1M
2023–2026 four-year OLA-specific capital cycle.

Governance — the distinguishing feature

Vancouver's Park Board is elected citywide every four years. Parks decisions — including OLA site selection, designation changes, and programming — go through commissioners who are directly accountable at the ballot box, rather than through a mayoral department. This is the largest governance contrast with Seattle, where Seattle Parks & Recreation (SPR) is a mayoral department.

Recent builds (2023–2026)

Under the Park Board's 2023–2026 Capital Plan, Vancouver has opened or is completing: Heather Park OLA (13,000 sq ft, opened 2025), Granville Park OLA, Emery Barnes Park OLA renewal and expansion, and a renewed Cooper's Park OLA — approximately $2.1M in OLA-specific capital across the four-year cycle, with ~$1.3M spent in 2024 alone.

Notable: time-zoned beach access

Vancouver uses seasonal time-restricted beach access (Spanish Banks, Sunset Beach, Kits Beach) where dogs are allowed off-leash only outside summer peak hours. This time-zoning model is one of the reference points for the shared-use-hours framing described on the opinion page.

Comparison with Seattle Two structural differences. First, governance: decisions by elected commissioners rather than a mayoral department. Second, time-zoning: the same stretch of Vancouver beach can host dogs off-leash in winter mornings and be dog-free in summer afternoons. Seattle's framework has no equivalent concept of temporal shared-use; parks are either on-leash at all times or OLAs at all times.

Peer 04Washington, DC — the only peer with an OLA-specific statute

DC operates 16 designated dog parks across all eight wards, all fully fenced. DC is the only peer with an OLA-specific enabling statute: the 2005 Dog Park Establishment Act (DC Law 16-175) defines what a Dog Park Area is, requires fencing, requires a recognized "Friends of" group to sign an MOU for stewardship, and requires environmental sign-off per site from DOEE.

Dog parks across all 8 wards
16 / 8
16 fenced dog parks; every ward covered.
The only peer with an OLA statute
DC Law 16-175
Seattle's OLAs exist under a 1997 parks ordinance; DC's 2005 Act legally defines what a dog park is and what stewardship it requires.
Friends groups required by law
1 per park
Every DPA requires a recognized Friends group with a signed MOU.

The statute that defines the system

The Dog Park Establishment Act of 2005 is the clearest example among the eight peer cities of OLAs being legally defined rather than policy-defined. It requires:

  • Each Dog Park Area must be fenced.
  • Each DPA must have a recognized Friends of Group that signs an MOU with DPR for day-to-day stewardship (cleaning, minor maintenance, community rules enforcement).
  • DOEE (Department of Energy & Environment) must sign off on each site for environmental impact.
  • $2 of each dog-license fee goes to the Animal Education & Outreach Fund — a spay/neuter fund, not OLAs. Pet licenses do not fund dog parks directly.

Funding

DPR general-fund operating for ongoing maintenance. Capital for new DPAs is per-project through the District Capital Improvements Plan (recent builds such as Texas Avenue DPA have come in around $1M each). No user fees or permits.

Access standard

DC uses the 10-minute walk to a park standard (TPL-aligned). DC has ranked #1 on TPL's ParkScore most years since 2019, in part because of dense park coverage across all eight wards. Dog-park coverage is placed ward by ward.

Comparison with Seattle Seattle's OLAs exist under a 1997 Parks ordinance without statutory-level definition, without a required stewardship structure, and without required per-site environmental review. Any future effort to formalize the relationship between Seattle's COLA and SPR could draw on DC's 2005 Act and Arlington County's CCA Guidelines as existing peer templates.

Peer 05Minneapolis, MN — the permit-fee model

The Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board (MPRB) operates nine off-leash dog parks, and is the only major US peer that treats OLAs as a user-pays service. Every dog using any of the nine OLAs must carry an annual permit; permit revenue is the primary funding source for OLA operations and maintenance through MPRB's dedicated Off-Leash Dog Park Enterprise Fund.

Users fund operations directly
$38 / year
Minneapolis resident annual permit; the only US peer where OLAs are funded primarily through user fees.
Permit revenue ring-fenced
Enterprise Fund
Revenue goes to the Off-Leash Dog Park Enterprise Fund, a dedicated OLA budget line.
Independent Park Board
Own taxing authority
MPRB is a separate taxing district with its own elected commissioners, outside City Council.

Permit structure

Minneapolis resident, first dog$38 annual
Minneapolis resident, each additional dog$27 annual
Non-resident, first dog$66 annual
Non-resident, each additional dog$38 annual
Daily permit (any visitor)$5 per dog
Hours6 AM – 10 PM
OrdinancePB2-18 — dedicated ordinance for off-leash areas

Governance

Like Vancouver, Minneapolis has an independently-elected park body — the MPRB is a separate taxing district with its own elected Board of Commissioners. Park Board decisions — including OLA siting, permit rates, and rule changes — sit outside the City Council's jurisdiction.

Funding

Operations: the Off-Leash Dog Park Enterprise Fund is a ring-fenced budget line funded almost entirely by permit revenue. MPRB publishes the fund's revenue and expenses in its annual CAFR. Capital for new OLAs comes from MPRB's general capital budget (property-tax-funded), separate from the Enterprise Fund.

Comparison with Seattle Minneapolis's permit system is the only live US precedent for OLA permit revenue funding OLA operations. Roughly 180,000 dogs in Minneapolis at any point would — if every one carried a $38 annual permit — generate ~$7M/yr, a full order of magnitude above Seattle's ~$100–130K/yr disclosed OLA operating line for the Cycle 1 window. Whether a permit model is politically viable in Seattle is a separate question; it exists as a live precedent.

Peer 06New York City — the shared-use hours model

NYC operates both dedicated fenced dog runs and a city-wide Off-Leash Hours policy formally codified on April 10, 2007 (informally since ~1986). In designated areas of participating parks, licensed and vaccinated dogs may be off-leash from park-opening until 9 AM and from 9 PM until park-close. The designated footprint spans dozens of parks across all five boroughs.

Shared-use has run for two decades
19 years
Formally codified 2007; informal operation since ~1986.
Dogs off-leash outside peak hours
9 PM – 9 AM
Parks remain dog-friendly at low-traffic times and leash-only when busy.
Participating parks in five boroughs
dozens
Central Park alone has 23 dog-friendly zones.

How it works

Participating parks designate specific zones where dogs may be off-leash during the two daily windows. Outside those windows, normal leash rules apply and are enforced by NYPD, NYC Parks Enforcement Patrol, Department of Health, and Department of Sanitation. Dogs must be licensed and currently vaccinated for rabies; owners must be present and in control. Central Park has 23 dog-friendly areas (no enclosed dog runs). Prospect Park uses 5–9 AM and 9 PM–1 AM. Forest Park, Riverside Park, Van Cortlandt, and dozens of neighborhood parks participate under the citywide framework.

Outcomes evidence

NYC does not publish a longitudinal evaluation — no official report with trend lines for citations, complaints, or injury rates. The available proxy is durability: nineteen years of formal operation across multiple administrations, no reversal, and no sustained move to repeal the policy. NRPA's November 2018 Parks & Recreation law-review treats the NYC model as the mature US example; Boston and Chicago run parallel variations.

Comparison with Seattle NYC runs shared-use off-leash hours across dozens of parks alongside its dedicated dog runs. Seattle runs 14 fenced OLAs — no shared-use hours, no voice-control areas, no time-zoned access. A Seattle pilot of this model, instrumented to track citations, Find It Fix It complaints, injury reports, and post-session cleanliness audits (as the opinion page proposes), would produce quantitative outcomes data of a kind NYC's 19-year history does not supply.

Peer 07Austin, TX — the acreage-headline caveat

Austin is cited in several popular "most dog-friendly cities" rankings for its large off-leash acreage (~682 acres). That figure is not apples-to-apples for peer comparison: Austin counts large natural-area parks with voice-control designation, rather than the fenced dedicated OLAs that Seattle, Portland, and most peer cities count. The fenced-OLA comparable is closer to ~80 acres, one-eighth of the headline.

Apples-to-apples with Seattle
~80 ac
Fenced off-leash acreage — the figure used for cross-city comparison.
Headline total (all definitions)
682 ac
Includes 293-ac Walnut Creek Metro Park and natural-area voice-control sites.
~2× Seattle per capita
0.78 ac / 10K
Fenced OLA acreage per capita vs Seattle's 0.38. On dog-parks-per-100K (TPL), Austin's 1.28 is below Seattle's 1.82.

Austin Parks & Recreation maintains a directory of 16 off-leash areas that distinguishes fenced dog parks, voice-control dog zones, and natural-area off-leash sites. Cross-city headline rankings work if everything on that list is included; capital-cost-per-acre comparison to Seattle or Portland fenced sites does not.

The peer-cities.csv carries both numbers for Austin and uses the fenced-only figure (ola_acres_total_est = 80) for per-capita math, with Walnut Creek Metropolitan Park's 293-acre voice-control footprint called out as the biggest single inflator. Any peer-city comparison on this site that cites Austin uses the adjusted figure.

Notes on interpretation When Austin is cited as a comparison city, which figure is being quoted matters. The 682-acre number is real but not directly comparable to Seattle's fenced 30.7 acres. The ~80-acre figure is the fenced-only comparator, and on that basis Austin has roughly 2× Seattle's fenced-OLA acreage per capita (0.78 ac/10K vs 0.38). On dog-parks-per-100K (TPL's count), Austin trails Seattle (1.28 vs 1.82).
Sources: Austin PARD — Dog Parks & Off-Leash Areas · TPL 2025 ParkScore Austin · data/peer-cities.csv (provenance column documents the adjustment)

Peer 08Boise, ID — layered access in a smaller city

Boise has roughly a third of Seattle's population and more than four times the dog parks per capita, using each city's own published count. This peer is relevant because the supply gap is not explained by city size or density alone.

Fenced permanent
7
Fenced-only, apples-to-apples with Seattle's 14 — still ~1.6× per capita. (TPL counts the combined 18 below.)
Seasonal / time-windowed
11
Designated-hours off-leash access at existing multi-use parks. Boise PARD's published count of 18 = these 11 + the 7 fenced; the 7.60 / 100K figure used in Part I uses the combined 18.
Population
240K
Roughly one-third of Seattle's 816K.

Boise's off-leash system has two layers Seattle does not: seven fenced permanent sites comparable to what Seattle counts, plus eleven additional parks with designated off-leash hours in the existing multi-use park network. The seasonal program (Ann Morrison Park, Optimist and Simplot Sports Complexes) allows dogs off-leash during winter months when sports fields are inactive.

Notes on interpretation A common response to Seattle's OLA count is that the city is too dense to build more dog parks. Boise is smaller rather than denser, so a population-scale argument is testable here. Boise runs 7 fenced sites for 240K people; Seattle runs 14 for 816K. The gap narrows when fenced-only methodology is applied uniformly, but Boise's seasonal program then adds 11 more sites. The two-layer model (permanent fenced plus time-windowed shared-use) is the design choice Seattle has not used.
Data note peer-cities.csv carries the combined count (18) for headline per-capita math. For fenced-only comparability to Seattle, use 7. Both figures are in the Boise PARD directory; the counting_methodology column flags the mix.

Observations across the eight peers

Four observations emerge from the per-city detail above:

  1. No peer publishes a dog-park-specific walkshed standard. Every peer uses the same 10-minute / half-mile standard that TPL, NRPA, ULI, NPS, and CDC use for parks generally. SPR's 2.5-mile OLA-specific standard is 5× the distance used by peer cities for parks overall.
  2. Two cities have elected park bodies (Vancouver, Minneapolis). Those are also the two cities with the most detailed OLA planning documents and, in Minneapolis's case, the only dedicated OLA revenue model among the peers.
  3. DC is the only peer with OLA-specific legislation. Seattle's OLAs exist under a 1997 Parks ordinance with no statutory definition, no required stewardship structure, and no required environmental review per site.
  4. Shared-use models are widely precedented. Portland (voice-control), San Francisco (voice-control zones), Vancouver (time-zoned beaches), New York (Off-Leash Hours), Austin (voice-control natural areas), and Boise (seasonal time-windowed) each run a form of shared-use that Seattle does not currently use.
Cross-peer pattern

Six of the eight peer cities operate at least one form of shared-use, time-zoned, or voice-control access alongside fenced dedicated OLAs: Portland (voice-control), San Francisco (voice-control zones within larger parks), Vancouver (time-zoned beaches), New York (Off-Leash Hours), Austin (voice-control natural-area sites), and Boise (seasonal time-windowed). Seattle's all-fenced, single-designation model is not represented in this peer set.