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.

TM Article 9 - Buying the Cotton Farm

Oops, I think this is a cotton farm in Uzbekistan, not the Cotton Farm off Marrett Road near the Museum of Our National Heritage. The Uzbek one looks like a pretty active and happy place, albeit a bit dry, unlike the one the Community Preservation Committee wants to buy for Conservation Commission land. The Cotton Farm is a 4 acre plot that will add to the Upper Vine Brook Conservation Area. The price is some $4 million dollars and change, although the sale is by no means certain. If this seems like a lot to you for the lanai to a swamp (i.e. the Upper Vine Brook Conservation Area), don't worry - you've already paid for it via the Community Preservation surcharge on your taxes. At present, you can walk your dog unleashed in the Upper Vine Brook Area, but of the 48 acres of mostly wetland there, all the walkable land is about a quarter of a mile long. More about our adventures there later. Anyway, this is Article 9 in the current spring Town Meeting, although it looks like it won't be taken up until April.

ALERT! : Controlled Fires in Willard's! 3/19, 3/22, 3/24

Sharon pointed out in an email:



In today's Minuteman (3/18) there's an article stating that starting Fri. at 8:30am, the Conservation Dept. will be creating brush fires at WW to eradicate invasive plants. They will have fires Fri. 3/19, Mon. 3/22, and Wed. 3/24. I think it's probably best to stay away from WW on those days. The last thing we want is for a dog to get hurt or in some way mess up what the conservation and fire departments are doing.



Take this day off from Willards and go visit one of the other Conservation areas. Many of them are pretty marshy just now, so watch out.

Patriots' Day Dog Parade Brainstorm

Some illustrated ideas on a dog parade to kickoff the Unleash movement at the annual Patriots' Day parade.

We don't want anything really angry at this point. These guys have a beef with Franco, but there aren't any dog issues we can identify with here. Franco is still dead, and calling somebody a Fascist, even if they were, dampens any dialogue. Ironically, I am not sure if political-themed parade groups are permitted on Patriots' day. These folks are dressed up rather nattily though, something sadly not often seen in today's protests.

Bicycles are great in parades but bicycles and dogs don't mix too well. In a recent Globe article, somebody accused a dog of PeePee-ing on a bicycle at Willard's. This guy seems to be doing ok, but it would be hard to train enough dogs fast enough to have a parade of dogs on bikes even if we could control their expressive urges. His paws don't actually reach the pedals either.

Switching to elephants on bikes might not get our message across. Plus, elephant guano is a much bigger problem than dog guano on parade routes.

Dogs can carry things on hikes. Having this dog in the parade carrying some gear would help us make our case to the Boy Scouts, who seem to have a problem using Willard's with dogs around.

Now we turn our attention to Barkus, a New Orleans Krewe with dog-themed parades. This dog is dressed up as Indiana Jones, in a sense très grand.

Lots of music, of course, plus dog masks on the musicians. This year the theme was BatMutt: The Bark Knight.

I suspect that dogs in parades might be a bit unruly, so many Barkus dogs travel on floats or carts.

Current State of Affairs

Apparently someone walked w/ commissioner Wyman and advocate for our side but not anyone amongst our group. Does anyone know who it was that walked w/ him? Commissioner Wyman, Bitsko and Chairwoman Miller are part of the sub-committee that will make a recommendation to the conservation commission. What are the possible compromises? Limited hours a la the Green dog program adopted by several surrounding communities? As of now ta compromise is conjecture, does anyone know any inside info? if so e-mail me, aynka@hotmail.com, and i'll post it.

Margaret

margaret said...

Hi all-today at about 2:30, another woman and I saw a man come to the campfire area, where the benches are, and with gloves, plastic bag, begin picking up the 50 or more beer cans scattered about. He said he had been looking at them for 2 days and wanted to do something about it. I think incidents like these should be documented and made known to the CC and the public. Also, broken glass is often found in that area-i found a broken beer bottle top today. I do not have a picture taking phone or i would have done so.

From Bob

Just wanted to throw out a few thoughts after the 2/23/10 CC meeting. The meeting was quite educational and distressing.
1. Are facts relevant to any of these discussions or is anecdote enough?

2. I think whatever expertise the commission members bring, they have no clue how to deal with a problem which contains such quality of life issues to so many people.

3. It's unfortuate that a commission member would publicly say that he would only pick up after his dog under threat of a sizable fine. Can we try bigger and clearer signage and peer pressure before trying to impose
fines?.

4. I thnk the commission members are way over their heads with regard to all this, and the arrogance of them all to blame everything from "degradation of the woods" to " disappearance of wildlife" on dogs" shows a total bias on their part.

5. I suggest we offer the goodwill of the dog walkers to help the member who wants to research what other communities have done. I'm sure we could find people to help do this research.

6. I suggest the commission create a committee made up of members from both sides, the commission and a neutral arbiter which comes up with suggestions that the conservation commission must choose from to resolve this issue. This will allow them to take cover under the new committee's bi-partisan make up and allow all voices to be heard.