Comments on: Article 28. Canine Control

By: Dan Foskett

Dan Foskett — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:49:57 +0000

If you don't have the time or inclination to watch the TM broadcasts on cable, Dan Dunn's blog is a good place to get whatever info you need. It looks like his notes on session 5 match Sue's recollection.

By: Sue Doctrow

Sue Doctrow — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:05:07 +0000

Dear Ken,
On Article 29, Selectmen’s recommended vote of “no action” was voted favorably by TM and there was no debate. One proponent had planned to submit a resolution (which, as I understand it, unlike a bylaw change, is a nonbinding statement of support for an issue or position). However, he was out of town, so not available to appear that night. One TMM spoke asking that debate be postponed to give him a chance to present the resolution, but TM voted the postponement down. This means that, since there was no substitute motion, the only option up for vote was the “no action” motion of the Selectmen.

Please, if anybody has a different answer to this, or a correction, feel free to chime in. It is my best recollection, but I didn’t watch the session again on TV.

Sue

By: Ken Domino

Ken Domino — Mon, 19 May 2008 14:42:34 +0000

What happened to Article 29, the draconian proposal to ban dogs entirely from Menotomy Rocks park? Was there a lot of support for it? Was there any debate?

By: Sue Doctrow

Sue Doctrow — Wed, 14 May 2008 15:17:34 +0000

Dear Dottie,
Thanks very much for posting your beautiful comment. It made me think of my late dog Sara, a sweet black lab who lived her entire 15 years with so much love and pure joy. I hope to meet the lovely Lady Windermere someday.

I am one member of the group that wrote the Substitute Motion, as well as the statement of support posted above. Unfortunately, while the benefits of dog ownership and the needs of dogs to run *were* mentioned by some at TM last Monday and in the previous session, the Substitute Motion was voted down. This was despite the introduction of amendments that corrected some oversights and brought the Motion closer to our original intent (e.g. an amendment written by School Committee member Joseph Curro to correct our misunderstanding that school-abutting properties are “Under the Control of the School Department”, as described by the part of the bylaws we deliberately did not seek to change.)

It was clear from the TM experience that this is an extremely sensitive issue in Arlington, although we already knew that and had tried to address major concerns, as described in the above statement of support. Even our having added the stringent requirement that dog owners would be in violation if their dogs are not under “effective control” did not placate many concerned individuals.

I hope very much that our Substitute Motion was voted down primarily by people who want to give the Green Dog committee the chance to do its work, and yet also agree that responsible dog owners have a valid right to some opportunities for off leash recreational activities with their dogs. Rather than by people who would seek to continue to deny us this right, and refuse to share the parks with us in this manner. Indeed, I know that people with the latter opinion do exist. But, I hope that they are in the minority. I guess we will learn the answer to that next year at Town Meeting.

Meanwhile, if you haven’t joined A-DOG, please do. And, ask your friends who have dogs, or who don’t have them but appreciate the value of the canine-human bond, to do so as well. We need to support one another, to advocate for our rights, and also to work with others in the community to address our differences as constructively as possible. And, personally, I wish the Green Dog committee great success. They are putting so much work into this program, and have had many concerns and perspectives to balance and I appreciate their extraordinary commitment to this issue. Particularly that of Leslie Mayer, my own TM precinct colleague and the dedicated, conscientious chair of our Parks and Recreation Commission.
Sincerely,
Sue

By: Dottie Nash-Webber

Dottie Nash-Webber — Mon, 12 May 2008 14:29:04 +0000

My dog is Lady Windermere (Winder), a black and white Lurcher. My experience during her 14 years is that she has brought great joy to children and adults. People say she is beautiful especially when she dashes across a field reminding us of the Kentucky Derby thoroughbreds. Parents ask whether their child can pat her and they do. This joy is much more prevalent than the one-off dog incident involving a child.

Animal rights and animal needs are more appreciated than ever. Winder is part border collie and we know they need to run every day. She is part greyhound and we know what they do. For Winder to not have a place to run would be an awful disregard of her needs. Many other breeds have similar needs that might evolve into a right to run.

I hope these ideas are part of the Town Meeting discussion.