Support Arlington Dog Owners on May 3 or May 5

Arlington is still trying to get through the limited unleashed dog walking, Article 36, that was described here in a series of videos.  This was no-voted by the Selectmen. and will be coming  up on either May 3 or May 5.  Lexington dog owners are encouraged to show up, but you have to keep quiet and sit in the balcony.  Here is a letter from Sue Doctrow:

Date: April 29, 2010 7:48:50 AM EDT

To: arlingtondogowners@gmail.com
Subject: Article 36 Likely Up for TM vote next week and A-DOG Members' Letters to the Advocate

Dear Members,

We believe that our Substitute Motion on Article 36 will come up for a TM vote this coming Monday (May 3) or Wednesday (May 5). There is a good chance it will be on Monday. Some of you have asked about attending Town Meeting to support us. Please do! It is held from 8 to 11 pm in Town Hall (in the main auditorium). Only TM members are allowed on the floor to avoid confusion about who is voting. But, others sit in the balcony and can see and hear everything.

As a warning, the Moderator does not allow cheering, booing or signs being held in the balcony. But, you can stand outside as TM members enter and ask them to support positive action on Article 36. (You can even hold a sign in favor of off-leash recreation out there, even if you can't use it inside).

It is a little difficult to predict the pace of TM, but it has been moving quickly so far. Still, it is possible that you will come on Monday and it will not yet be voted. That's okay. It's important to demonstrate support for off leash recreation so if TM members see you as they enter that would certainly be helpful!

On another note, CONGRATULATIONS for our great showing in the Letters to the Editor in the Arlington Advocate today! It looks like there are six letters in support of off-leash recreation (out of ten total), and none opposed. I have pasted the letters in this link for your convenience:

Arlington Dog Owners Page
Wicked Local Opinions Page (Advocate)

When you write to your TM Members to ask them to support Article 36, be sure to include the link so they can read these letters! Not a bad idea to send the link to other Town officials you might write, as well.

all the best,


Sue Doctrow

Cats, Not Dogs Linked to Wildlife Population Collapse

We've heard that sometime in the distant past, Willard's Woods had lots more wildlife, especially lovely songbirds, than it does now. Unleashed dogs are presented as the probable culprits in this. Who wouldn't wish for idyllic scenes like this, just minutes away from the town center?

But as we stated some time ago, Willard's Woods was a burgeoning chicken farm, not an eagle rookery. As you can see, properly supervised dogs are not a threat to either chickens or children.

In fact, cats are the real problem.  Feral cats and cats from abutters.

According to the American Bird Conservancy:

Exact numbers are unknown, but scientists estimate that nationwide, cats kill hundreds of millions of birds, and more than a billion small mammals, such as rabbits, squirrels, and chipmunks, each year. Cats kill common species such as Cardinal, Blue Jay, and House Wren, as well as rare and endangered species such as Piping Plover, Florida Scrub-Jay, and California Least Tern.

• Well-fed Cats Do Kill Birds.
• Cats With Bells on Their Collars Do Kill Birds.
• Most Birds That Seem to Escape Don’t Survive
• Cat Colonies Are a Problem for Birds and Other Wildlife

Ultimately, cats are not ultimately responsible for killing our native wildlife—people are. The only way to prevent domestic cat predation on wildlife is for owners to keep their cats indoors!

Bacon on the table

On Saturday 4/24/2010, two people were in Willard's Woods at the picnic table at the top of hill near the North Road parking lot.  They were reported to have had bacon on the the table and were trying to induce dogs to steal it off the table, video tape them and prove that the dogs were running wild in the woods.  If you saw them, let us know.  Thanks.

Newt Gingrich's Dog Writing Tips

We expect that new letters will have to be written about dogs in Willard's Woods, very soon. Recently mentioned in Doonesbury, Newt Gingrich's 1996 memo on writing can be valuable for dog missives.  Use the positive ones in describing dogs and dog lovers and the negative ones to describe opponents.

Language: A Key Mechanism of Control

[Newt Gingrich's 1996 GOPAC memo]
As you know, one of the key points in the GOPAC tapes is that "language matters." In the video "We are a Majority," Language is listed as a key mechanism of control used by a majority party, along with Agenda, Rules, Attitude and Learning. As the tapes have been used in training sessions across the country and mailed to candidates we have heard a plaintive plea: "I wish I could speak like Newt."

That takes years of practice. But, we believe that you could have a significant impact on your campaign and the way you communicate if we help a little. That is why we have created this list of words and phrases.

This list is prepared so that you might have a directory of words to use in writing literature and mail, in preparing speeches, and in producing electronic media. The words and phrases are powerful. Read them. Memorize as many as possible. And remember that like any tool, these words will not help if they are not used.

While the list could be the size of the latest "College Edition" dictionary, we have attempted to keep it small enough to be readily useful yet large enough to be broadly functional. The list is divided into two sections: Optimistic Positive Governing words and phrases to help describe your vision for the future of your community (your message) and Contrasting words to help you clearly define the policies and record of your opponent and the Democratic party.

Please let us know if you have any other suggestions or additions. We would also like to know how you use the list. Call us at GOPAC or write with your suggestions and comments. We may include them in the next tape mailing so that others can benefit from your knowledge and experience.

Optimistic Positive Governing Words

Use the list below to help define your campaign and your vision of public service. These words can help give extra power to your message. In addition, these words help develop the positive side of the contrast you should create with your opponent, giving your community something to vote for!

active(ly)
activist
building
candid(ly)
care(ing)
challenge
change
children
choice/choose
citizen
commitment
common sense
compete
confident
conflict
control
courage
crusade
debate
dream
duty
eliminate good-time in prison
empower(ment)
fair
family
freedom
hard work
help
humane
incentive
initiative
lead
learn
legacy
liberty
light
listen
mobilize
moral
movement
opportunity
passionate
peace
pioneer
precious
premise
preserve
principle(d)
pristine
pro- (issue): flag, children, environment, reform
prosperity
protect
proud/pride
provide
reform
rights
share
strength
success
tough
truth
unique
vision
we/us/our

Contrasting Words

Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.

abuse of power
anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
betray
bizarre
bosses
bureaucracy
cheat
coercion
"compassion" is not enough
collapse(ing)
consequences
corrupt
corruption
criminal rights
crisis
cynicism
decay
deeper
destroy
destructive
devour
disgrace
endanger
excuses
failure (fail)
greed
hypocrisy
ideological
impose
incompetent
insecure
insensitive
intolerant
liberal
lie
limit(s)
machine
mandate(s)
obsolete
pathetic
patronage
permissive attitude
pessimistic
punish (poor ...)
radical
red tape
self-serving
selfish
sensationalists
shallow
shame
sick
spend(ing)
stagnation
status quo
steal
taxes
they/them
threaten
traitors
unionized
urgent (cy)
waste
welfare

FOWW in Patriots' Day Parade - Video Version

Unleash Scooby - Patriots' Day 2010

The Friends of Willard's Woods (FOWW) position in the Lexington Patriots' Day parade was number 80 out of about 85.  I actually didn't see much of the parade - it is kind of like being an extra in a giant historical epic movie. Behind us was  a group of World War II reënactors.  They had their own tanks - in some parades they have fired giant blanks (to the distress of parade authorities), but did not in this parade. This is a demonstration of concealing the contents of a can using a rubber glove, probably an attempt to avoid a  reënactment of some past brush with open container law.

Also behind us was a revolutionary group.  This might be a moment from an alternative history novel where armies from different times mix.

The dog is stuffed but the child is real..

These girls are the passengers in our float car.  The masks are pictures of their dogs.  No actual dogs were in the parade. 

The float car is ready to go.  This reminds me of William Wegman but this is People dressed as Dogs v. Dogs dressed as People.

Prior to the parade, FOWW sought a volunteer for the dog costume.  The costume turned out to be for Scooby from the cartoon series - there were many fans of Scooby in the parade audience. Scooby in the costume is about 7 feet tall.  Scooby started working the crowd immediately with high-fives and continued as we marched.

Early on, Scooby sat down with a family along the parade route.

Scooby delighted his fans with hugs.

Technology Transfer Key to Abutters' Concerns

Not all technology involves electronics and computers. We recently toured Sutherland Woods Conservation Area. This area has a big playground in the front with a woods in the back bordering on Route 2. I think Willard's Woods is a much better place to take dogs, but we did learn about some technology of interest to the neighbors of Willard's Woods complaining about dogs in their yards. The Conservation Commission has already deployed it successfully at Sutherland. Here is a snap of my dog narrowly avoiding a nasty leap to his death above the escarpment on Route 2 because of a fence:

The fence used at Sutherland is called a cyclone or chain link fence.  Not very rustic, so we would encourage this far more aesthetic handmade fence in use at Puolonka, Finland:

Fences are not a perfect solution, but it is fairly easy to keep dogs inside Willard's Woods.  Deer could still pass freely, bringing their bounty of ticks:

DOG PARADE IN MICHIGAN

The Friends of Willard's Woods part of the Patriots' Day parade will not involve actual dogs, but this is one from Michigan that does:

I OWN A DOG AND I VOTE

Get your magnet at the AKC site.  You can put it on your car. This dog one is probably some variant of a gun rights sticker.  Go to CafePress if you want this one too:

It should not escape notice that arguments about unleashed dogs are a lot like arguments about gun control. {Dog, Gun} problems are a result of a few irresponsible owners. {Dog, Gun} ownership is a right. We are taxpayers - {Dog, Gun} owners deserve fair treatment. We don't need new laws for registering and restricting {Dogs, Guns} - just enforce the laws that are on the books.

May 20, 2009 Arlington TM Defeats Green Dog Proposal

This is a brief excerpt of the Arlington Town Meeting when the Green Dog proposal was defeated.  The interesting part is the comments prior to the actual meeting.  The proposal is quite complex and detailed.  The 25 slides are here.

Lexington Conservation Commission Plans 2010

This is excerpted from the CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COMMITTEE REPORT TO 2010 ATM  - the section on Conservation. "ATM" means Annual Town Meeting, not automatic teller machine, although confusion is certainly possible.  This is not a photograph of the Lexington ATM either, rather a shura in sunny Afghanistan.

"CPA" does not mean Certified Public Accountant, rather the Community Preservation Act.  When a town adopts the state CPA, a surcharge of up to 3% of property tax revenue goes into the Community Preservation Fund.  This fund is in turn matched by the state and used for open space purchases, historic resources, and affordable housing.  Repeal efforts are underway in various towns in Massachusetts that have adopted the CPA.

Conservation
Under the CPA, which Lexington adopted in March 2006, at least 10% of each year’s CPA-surcharge revenue must be devoted to Open Space (along with the same allocations to Historic Resources and Community [Affordable] Housing) and additional funds from the Unbudgeted Reserve and the Undesignated Fund Balance can be used for Open Space purchases. At the Annual Town Meeting in April 2009 (Article 12), a $2,763,100 Community Preservation Fund (CPF) cash appropriation was approved to purchase a 14.2-acre parcel of land on Vine Street (the “Leary Land”)—which purchase closed August 11, 2009. The parcel will be conservation land except for 0.7 acre that is planned to be used for affordable housing. At the Special Town Meeting (Article 6) in May 2009, a $4,295,000 appropriation (also from the CPF) was approved to purchase a 7.93-acre parcel off of Lowell Street (the “Busa Farm”)—which purchase then closed on December 4, 2009. As specified in the purchase, the land was then leased back to the prior owner for continued use as a farm through April 1, 2011 (unless mutually extended) while the Town determines how best to use that land. Its use will be decided by a future Town Meeting after a Selectmen-appointed committee makes recommendations. (At the time of this writing, the Board of Selectmen is in the process of defining that committee and its charge from the Board.)


At this Annual Town Meeting, we may have the opportunity to purchase land off of Marrett Road (Cataldo/Cotton Farm) for about $3.8 million. (See Article 9) At the time of this writing, the CPC has not voted on whether to advance that purchase. Should it be presented to Town Meeting, this Committee will issue a supplemental report. Land adjacent to the 2009 Busa Farm purchase is also listed on the Warrant (Article 10, “Goldinger property”), but that Article is expected to be Indefinitely Postponed.


In the CPC’s administrative budget, $50,000 is included to enable the Conservation Commission to do preliminary research such as land surveys and appraisals as part of the process of bringing future land acquisition opportunities to the table. (See Article 8(v))

Arlington Dog Fight!

Material provided by the Arlington Dog Owner's Group.  This is not a picture of downtown Arlington, but you might get the impression that Arlington is overrun with dogs after watching these videos.

Guide to Videos from Arlington Board of Selectmen hearing on Article 36.
This is the Arlington Dog Owner Group's (A-DOG) proposed vote under Article 36 under discussion:

To amend (appropriate sections) of the By-Laws so as to allow dogs to be off-leash, under effective owner control, from park opening time until 9 am, in all lands under control of the Parks and Recreation Commission except: those lands directly abutting school properties; within 15 ft of playground equipment; and by specific exclusion of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Part 1:
1. Presentation of Article 36 proposed vote by three proponents:

• Mary McCartney (TM member, Pct 1): reads proposed vote and reviews its assets, including only early morning hours, requirement for owner control, and flexibility for the Parks and Recreation to make additional changes
• Ann Smith (TM member, Pct 17): presents petition in favor of off-leash recreation signed by 900 Arlington residents, supplying list of these names to the Selectmen
• Susan Doctrow (TM member, Pct 21): discusses why the proposal is relatively conservative, citing leash laws in other MA communities as examples; she also says that it is complementary to the work of the Dog Park Task Force (on which she's also serving) currently evaluating possible fenced parks

2. Selectman Clarissa Rowe recommends that the Board vote "no action" and this is seconded by Selectmen Jack Hurd and Diane Mahon. While commending A-DOG's efforts, Ms. Rowe says that A-DOG must continue to educate dog owners to be more responsible before anything like this will be acceptable.

.


Part 2

1. For continuity, repeat of final lines (Part 1) from Selectman Rowe and "no action" motion
2. Selectman Diane Mahon raises concerns that out-of-towners will come to Arlington to use its parks for their dogs' off-leash recreation. Any plan like this should address ways to exclude outsiders, if possible.
3. Ann Smith and Susan Doctrow rebut this concern: A. Which towns and cities will such dog owners come from? For example, Somerville and Lexington already have facilities and provisions for off leash recreation. (Ms. Mahon's answer to this included Cambridge and Boston). B. Only early morning hours are proposed. People need to get to work or their kids to school and are unlikely to have time to drive very far. And, even if they do, the parks are virtually empty at such hours so the impact, if any, is questionable.
4. Susan Doctrow further comments on Ms. Rowe's statement that Arlington is too densely populated for this proposal, with a discussion of the successful off leash recreation program (over 20 yrs in operation) in New York City. Ms. Rowe answers that NYC has more parkland, and that the off-leash areas are further from residences, citing her visit to her daughter in NYC.
5. Public commentary begins, with Article proponent James Goebel, explaining that this proposal makes sense, and is much less complex than the Green Dog plan that Town Meeting voted against last year.
6. Article proponent Deborah Goldsmith states the need for a leash law change such as the one being proposed, for example, to help dog owners raise well-trained and behaved dogs. She discusses why the proposal with limited hours is reasonable. She mentions, in particular, how unproductive it is to have it be illegal to even use a 26 ft training leash. She also says that she believes it is time, and that another year without doing something will not help the situation.

Part 3

1. For continuity, repeat of final lines (Part 2) from proponent Deborah Goldsmith
2. Article proponent Ellen Kravitz addresses Ms. Rowe's comments that it is incumbent on all dog owners to educate, and correct the behavior of, irresponsible dog owners before there can be any change to the leash law. She says that dog owners are being held to a standard of perfection that is not expected of other groups. For example, even though there are dangerous traffic accidents, nobody says that other drivers cannot be allowed to have drivers' licenses until all drivers behave responsibly. Similarly, sports events are not cancelled because a few park users litter during such activities.
3. Article proponent BethAnn Friedman (TM member, Pct 15) stressed that last year's vote at Town Meeting against the Green Dog plan was very close (88 to 83), indicating that there is wide support for allowing dogs off leash under certain conditions. Ms. Rowe said that a proposal such as this can still be presented as a Substitute Motion at Town Meeting, even though the Selectmen will vote against supporting it.
4. Article opponent Mustafa Varoglu (TM member, Pct 8) says that he supports off-leash recreation under certain circumstances, and also is a member of the Dog Park Task Force. But, he doesn't support this proposal because it leaves too much decision in the hands of Parks and Recreation Commission instead of in the public and the hands of the Board of Selectmen. He did not like the previous Green Dog plan, and raised concerns about the views of this Commission, stating 3 members of the Parks and Recreation Commission were members of the Green Dog committee. (This is not correct, to our knowledge. Only one individual, Leslie Mayer, is part of both Parks and Recreation Commission and Green Dog Committee. As in other communities, the Parks and Recreation Commission is appointed by the Board of Selectmen to decide on details of park usage.)
5. The Board of Selectmen issued their final vote against A-DOG's proposal under Article 36. Selectman Kevin Greeley (Chairman of the Board of Selectmen) voted against his colleagues. He explained that, like last year, he feels that a lot of work has gone into this effort by the Green Dog committee, and that it deserves a discussion at Town Meeting. However, the vote was 4 to 1, so it is "no action". Mr. Greeley said we must keep talking about this issue, and joked that he wants to see all 900 petition signers at the Town Meeting when this is discussed.