Subject: More thoughts on the Green Dog proposal

I know I’m coming late to the dog discussion, but I’m a dog owner who has spent the last few weeks researching the Green Dog program to better understand it. I’m ambivalent about the ever-changing proposal, but as a member of the SSNA, I thought I should express my thoughts, which may be different from how many others view the situation. 

Some of the “worst case scenario” projections and assumptions regarding off-leash hours seem overly fearful to me, especially given what I’ve witnessed in the past two and a half yrs. (since I got a tiny dog and started going to various parks in town).  I feel that the only way to know whether optimistic projections or worst case scenarios will prevail is to pilot a program.  There are successful programs not only in much-discussed Brookline, with its population density of 8,060.1 people/square mile, but also in Somerville with its population density of 18,132 people/square mile! It makes little sense that no program can ever work in Arlington with our 7,912.3 people/square mile. (Those figures are all based on 2007 records.) 

[Just FYI – if people are curious about the details of the Brookline program, I found this: http://www.brooklinema.gov/Parks/parksandrec/greendog.shtml
 
My thoughts on a few random issues:

- I was under the impression that aggressive dog owners were pushing a particular plan on the town. I was mistaken. Dog owners simply asked for off-leash time (see next paragraph for the reason).  The current odd proposal is the result of the Green Dog committee’s many attempts to compromise with those opposed.  The purpose of a pilot program is to try something reasonable, uncover problems and benefits, and then either alter the program or seek a completely different solution.  A pilot that attempts to (in advance) accommodate every worst case scenario can end up so convoluted, it’s doomed to failure. That means never knowing whether there might’ve been some way to make things better for all citizens. 

- Most leash laws came into being when people let their dogs out the back door to run free, unsupervised all day.  Many towns and cities still have them on the books. Today those same laws are used (in Arlington, but usually not in other towns) to, for example, criminalize a responsible dog owner who lets a dog off leash for 10 minutes to retrieve a ball when no one else is around.  This was not the original reason for these laws, which brings up several questions:  Is this how the people of Arlington want the law applied?  Do we want the town’s single dog officer to go after responsible dog owners (who are bothering no one) or be able to spend more time on irresponsible dog owners (who actually inconvenience or even endanger others)?  Is it possible that modernizing the law will encourage more voluntary compliance, making enforcement easier?  Piloting a reasonable off-leash program is the only way to find out.

- Having met many dog owners in the past few years, I’ve found that a large number have no desire to let their dogs off-leash (either because the dog is unfriendly or they’re afraid it will run off). Those who feel they can let their dogs off-leash do so already, to give their dogs additional exercise (beyond one or more daily walks) and simply to play with them.  Will the Green Dog program mean a dramatic increase in off-leash dogs?  It may not.  Again, the only way to know is to pilot it.

- Will it bring in people from other towns?  Most of the surrounding towns or cities either already have areas where dogs can go off leash or else their leash laws are enforced in a more common-sense fashion.  Given the size of our parks, I can’t imagine many people from outside of Arlington bothering to come here to exercise their dogs. Again, a pilot is the only way to know for sure. And if we find that a small number of people from neighboring towns use our parks, everyone should realize that it’s reciprocal; Arlington dog owners frequently use their parks (particularly the large parks in Medford and Lexington). Parks are public land and have traditionally remained open to all. We don’t want to panic and restrict “outsiders” until we have real evidence that there are problems.

- Regarding the poop issue (which I’m very concerned about) – I think it’s important to separate that issue from the off-leash issue.  I’ve “stepped in it” as often on sidewalks and pathways (i.e., left by leashed dogs) as in the middle of fields.  When there are groups of unleashed dogs, I’ve seen responsible owners insist that shirkers pick up.  Most of the poop gets left by a minority of owners when no one else is around.  Why do I think it’s a minority? If 30 dogs visit a park each day and only one owner doesn’t clean up, it’s soon evident.  If the majority of dog owners in Arlington were irresponsible, the poop problem would be far worse than it is. 

HOWEVER, there’s still room for improvement, and I think the only solution is to use fees (from dog owners) to pay for barrels and bag dispensers (with signs asking people to bring their own bags and leave the dispensers for emergencies).  We all pay taxes for town barrels/pick-up because irresponsible citizens won’t bring bags and take home their litter.  In this case, a portion of dog owners would be paying for something extra that might help keep the entire town cleaner.  Without a pilot program and additional fees, there’s little hope for any change in the current situation.

- My biggest fear about the current proposals?  If the hours and locations are too restrictive (e.g., off-leash only for 2 hrs. early each AM), the program will not gain enough financial support.  Dog owners who can’t take advantage of the allotted hours are less likely to pay fees (and I think fees could end up being the most helpful part of this entire program).  And those same dog owners will most likely continue to let their dogs off leash at other times.  It’s the worst of both worlds – the same number of dogs off leash with no additional income to resolve problems (such as the poop issue, etc.).  

Also, because I often work at home, I’m in numerous parks at various times of the day and often (especially from November until mid-April), I’m either the only one in the park or there with one or two other dog owners.  During the off-season when large areas of our parks are unused for a significant portion of most days, it makes no sense to crowd all off-leash dogs into an AM time slot along with people who exercise before work.

- Regarding fenced in areas – I’m not crazy about the idea because it reduces multi-use space, but perhaps it makes sense to have a few fenced in areas where fearful people will know for certain that all off-leash dogs will be behind a fence.  

- Mostly I think that change should be piloted and then altered if there are problems (just as off-leash programs were altered in towns like Brookline).  Much of the time our worst fears are not realized.  We would have no bike trails, sports programs, fireworks, sledding, parades, even town gatherings/events, etc. if “worst case scenario” fears had stopped us from trying them and discovering the true costs and benefits.

- I am ecstatic to hear Jeanne’s report that the town at long last will clean up the top of Hills Hill. These days I’m reluctant to walk there, as it’s filled with poison ivy (when the weather warms up), litter and an astonishing amount of broken glass (I now have to pick up my dog and carry him so he won’t cut his feet), not to mention the intimidating loiterers. It’s both disgusting and scary.

The current plan is obviously preferable to a dog park, but if not enough people use the area, I fear it will again deteriorate. I’ve now seen that groups of responsible dog owners keep irresponsible ones in line. Again, I prefer the current plan for Hills Hill, but also believe that had we allowed a dog park years ago, we might have discovered, to our surprise, that neighborhood dog owners visiting daily (picking up litter, discouraging loiterers, and reporting problems to the town), would’ve made the property a safer, more usable piece of land today. I hope the upcoming changes last far into the future, but also caution people not to diminish the role that dog owners (out there every day, in all kinds of weather, throughout the year) have in making our public areas safer for everyone.

Again, I’m not happy with many aspects of the current Green Dog proposal, but I also know that when many variables are involved, it’s difficult to predict whether change will make things worse or end up benefiting all citizens.

Thanks for listening.

Ellen Kravitz

It’s good to know there is a strong network of dog walkers at the park we frequent and they and their pets serve as first responders when it comes to spotting, reporting and dealing with issues. Dog walkers help keep our parks and the homes bordering those parks safe.

I’m not in favor of a fenced “no-leash dog area” for two reasons: expense and confinement. When large dogs run by/towards my small dogs – my dogs become afraid. Enclosing them would only exacerbate the problem. For those living adjacent to a park and concerned about privacy – why not install a privacy fence around their property – seems sensible and practical.

We are at the park almost daily. The vast majority of pet owners are experienced, respectful and know their pets. We share this category and have well trained dogs – but they didn’t come that way. It took years of dedicated effort and continued reinforcement. The reward – seeing the grin from ear-to-ear when we ask them if they want to go to the “park?” Sheer happiness from such simple pleasures.

We trust that responsible, courteous pet owners will be allowed to have their pets off-leash to run and catch a ball, take a swim, or just enjoying a nice walk on the trail.

By Betsy Pollock/guest columnist
GateHouse News Service
Posted May 08, 2008 @ 11:02 PM
Brookline —

Thirty years ago, while our dogs played at Schick Park, I became friends with an almost 60-year-old woman who was very active in Brookline, a selectman, in fact, who encouraged me to participate in town-related activities. That was Ellie Myerson, and I followed her advice and have served ever since on numerous town boards and commissions. Currently, I am president of the Senior Center Board.

Now 60 myself, the cycle has come full circle and during the limited morning off-leash dog hours at Emerson Park, I engage in similar conversations with people who want to be active participants in the life of our town. I tell this story because I believe that it speaks to the wonderful, vital community that develops when people from diverse backgrounds, ages, social groups and stages in life have the opportunity to meet daily and get to know one another.

Brookline’s Green Dog Program enhances the sense of community in our neighborhoods. Community building thrives on the regular contact that cannot be achieved by a yearly party, yard sale or potluck. Not all community building takes place in the schools. The benefits to the community of the Green Dog Program are numerous. We help each other, counsel each other, hire each other’s children, console each other and celebrate with each other. Our dogs are socialized, which reduces aggression. We welcome new neighbors and help people to feel that they belong to a real community.

As an example, through the Green Dog Program, I met someone who now does the event planning for the Senior Center; and her children have done their high school community service hours there. These kinds of connections would be impossible without this program. When my husband and I moved from Addington Road to Stanton Road almost five years ago, we were immediately connected to the community because of the other dog owners at Emerson Park. Together, we lobbied to create the Green Dog Program, and we now abide by its limits and restrictions.

Those of us who enjoy the Green Dog Program take our privilege seriously. We clean up after our dogs and monitor our activities. We take pride in the park and clean up after nighttime scofflaws. We remind others to do the same. Brookline is an urban community, and one cannot expect to find a silent garden in the midst of a bustling neighborhood. We do not offer gated gardens in public places. Emerson Park is a busy place and the field gets heavy use due to sports, children, bicycles, picnics, parties and concerts. Currently, the park is fenced off so the grass can recover from all the activity, as well as last year’s drought. As dog owners, we are in support of this timeout.

We dog owners share our lives with our dogs and look forward to our brief early-morning off-leash romp in our own neighborhood. The hours of the program begin when construction crews are allowed to begin their noise-making home improvements. When I lived for 28 years across from Schick Park, I enjoyed hearing the sounds of dogs and children. I know that many of the neighbors who live across from Emerson Park do, too. Please preserve our Green Dog Program at Emerson Park.

March 28, 2009.
Dear Arlington Board of Selectmen,

We are a family of 5: mom, dad, 8 year old daughter, 5 year old son and 16 months old dog. Our dog is a recent addition to our family. She was 11 weeks old when we rescued her from a shelter in Sterling, MA and since her first day with us, just a little over one year ago, she’s been such a joy to our family.

Our dog is a wonderful pup. Beautiful, extremely intelligent (easy to train), loyal, obedient, happy, kind, super friendly with both dogs and people. Having a dog was a big commitment to our family. As I said, we had two children who wanted a dog but we couldn’t do it until we felt we were ready to take on the responsibility of “raising” a puppy.

I didn’t grow up with a dog and my husband had dogs that just stayed outside the house. Dog responsibilities were mostly feeding, picking up after it and a occasional play and attention. However our dog, as most dogs we know, were brought into our families as a family member.

From day one we looked for training classes so we could educate ourselves on how to raise a good dog. We learned that it was important to walk her to places where she could meet other dogs to play and be well socialized with both dogs and people. We also learned that it was beneficial to expose her to different environments: stores, banks, parks, beach and people’s homes. All that to help creating a well adjusted dog.

While doing so we never, encountered any problems anywhere. Senior dog owners were friendly, patient, understanding and helpful with tips on how to raise a pup (not always in line with our style but still kind and good hearted).

After one year of joy, frustration, hard work, many laughs, the efforts paid off. We have a wonderful, well behaved, loving dog. She also has lots of energy and needs to run free at least once a day. I take her to long walks in the woods where we can both run free. She plays with other dogs freely and as a result, she’s calm, very friendly as most dogs I’ve seen and around our neighborhood.

On my experience, it seems that dog owners that have dogs with “issues” tend not to have them off leash. We know of family who had a dog who wasn’t well socialized so they only took him out at odd hours when they wouldn’t encounter dogs nor people on the streets.

I believe that dog owners aren’t asking for anything out of line. We care for our neighborhood, many of us have children of all ages, and, speaking for myself, I would never agree to a “plan” that would add risk to my family.

Looking forward to a positive outcome on the Green Dog Pilot vote tomorrow evening.
Thank you for reading my letter.

Sincerely,
Cristiana Navarro de Carvalho – mother of Nina, Nicholas and owner of Puka

To the Board of Selectmen,

I am writing to express my support for the Green Dog initiative (and any other similar initiatives) which will allow people like me to enjoy Arlington’s open spaces as well as create a safe environment for the entire community.

This is not a dog issue. It is a people issue. As a dog owner, tax payer, voter and volunteer within Arlington, the only time I use the green space in town is with my dog, now that my child is grown. Taking my dog to the park has allowed me to meet many of my neighbors, people who had lived near me for years that I would never had met otherwise, and even e stablish a few friendships that have moved beyond the park. Every day, rain or shine, I stand with a group of people and learn about what is going on in the community and what is going on with the neighborhood. We often spend time picking up trash within the park from a previous night of “young adults’ activities”, and often several bottles and food wrappers after kids’ sports. Although I walk my dog through the neighborhood daily, only through the time spent in the park have I developed a sense of community. This is a rare positive opportunity to bring people with a common interest into a common space and should be rewarded and cherished.

I volunteer every week with my dog as a therapy dog in Arlington with seniors and children with disabilities. In order for her to be on her best behavior and as calm as possible, it is important that she stay well exercised and well socialized. To be socialized for a dog means being around not just different people, and in different environments, but interacting with different dogs. In fact, I often use the park as a learning spot for my dog to introduce her to new people, especially children who may not have an opportunity to meet a dog and can build anxiety about something unknown. It is well documented that dogs are more territorial on leash or within their own yards. Without time off leash, it is harder to learn basic commands like “come” or “leave it”. According to vets and animal behaviorists, open running time in a neutral space, like a common area park, reduces fear and aggression in dogs, which leads to healthier and happier dogs, less likely to bark, or be destructive or territorial. That is a benefit for the entire community.

I work with special needs children who have many fears, including dogs. Most of these fears only increase over time if they are not allowed to confront those fears, in small doses, to break down the barriers to rational thinking. Standing in the park with other dog owners, we monitor and help control each=2 0others’ dogs when other people, especially children and the elderly come near. We are able to speak to each other about proper ways to let people who are frightened, for example, approach our dogs and we police each other on how to be good dog owners. A nationwide study of dog parks shows that defined areas leads dog owners to higher levels of compliance with relevant laws.

My fear is that without a new policy in place in Arlington, we will enforce fear, aggression and anxiety within people and dogs. With regulated times and places that are reasonable for everyone, enforcement will be based in fairness to all citizens. The draconian situation as it exists now is set up for failure. Dog owners will continue to look for places to take their dogs and that anxiety will foster anxious situations. People with fear of dogs will not know when or where to expect dogs and remain anxious that anytime they go out they could be around dogs.& nbsp; If I am worried about getting hit in the face with a baseball or soccer ball, I am not going to be in the parks during times that those activities are happening.

We need Green Dog or other similar programs to accommodate all citizens’ wishes, not just a vocal few. Multi-use parks and facilities are necessary to accommodate all citizens’ wishes. Please vote to recommend this initiative to Town Meeting. Thank you.

Gian M. Schauer
Brooks Avenue
Precinct 2

Great news about the progress for a dog park in downtown Boston! I look forward to learning more about it. I’d like to add that there is already a lovely fenced OLRA, reportedly ~14,000 sq feet, in the South End (www.peterspark.org). And, I recently learned that there is a new OLRA in South Boston (http://www.dogparkusa.com/massachusetts/boston-cambridge/south-boston-dog-park). Plus, active volunteers in the Ronan Park area of Dorchester are making great progress toward establishing a fenced OLRA in their own neighborhood.

Regarding NYC, yes, they have had a successful off-leash program for decades. In addition to the shared off-leash hours in parks that you mention, there are at least 40 dog parks. This program is reportedly regarded as being quite beneficial to the community, for example, by at least three NYC Parks Commissioners and by many borough parks administrators.
http://www.nycoffleash.com/html/FAQ.htm

And, thanks for mentioning Somerville. As I understand it, in Somerville, dogs were once not even allowed in many parks, even leashed. The first fenced OLRA, Nunziato (about 10,000 sq ft) was established in 2006. Its success led to a second OLRA, opening last year in Ed Leathers park, at ~2500 sq ft. In addition, I’ve been told that two more Somerville OLRAs, ~10,000 to 20,000 sq ft each, are in the planning stages. The Somerville Dog Owners Group (SomDOG) is a civic organization that has grown into a significant “force for good” in their community, promoting responsible dog ownership, conscientious care of park space, and other practices that benefit the entire city. SomDOG and other dog owner groups across the Commonwealth are an inspiration to us at A-DOG.

By the way, the reason I keep listing the dimensions of these OLRAs is that some people cite the AKC’s recommendation that an “ideal dog park” should be at least 1 acre. This, too, is used as an argument against fenced OLRAs in Arlington and in other communities. An acre is over 40,000 sq ft, but, as we’ve discussed, there are plenty of good examples of much smaller fenced OLRAs. As I recently posted on another neighborhood list, this video from ~1/4 acre Nunziato makes it pretty clear that dog owners don’t need an acre to give their dogs (and one toddler) a joyful and beneficial play session:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hpPztCrx8Q

Sue Doctrow (co-authored by my two labs)
A-DOG

So has Boston: http://bostondog.org/
2008: About three weeks ago after almost a year of meetings, lots of hard work by several people and a lot of Q&A sessions with the general public, we have finally completed the Draft Proposal of our plan to bring a designated, permanent, LEGAL enclosed dog park to downtown Boston. With a growing population of close to 9,000 registered dogs in Boston Proper and the lack of open spaces available, we really feel we have answered all the concerns of dog owners and non-owners alike.

So has Somerville: http://www.somdog.org/
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/somdog-discussion/

So has Middlesex Fells Reservation/Sheepfold: http://groups.google.com/group/FellsDOG?pli=1

So has Belmont: http://www.belmontdogownersgroup.org/

New York City does too–and Central Park is freely open to visitors with or without dogs: http://www.nycdog.org/

Comprehensive shared-space study on dogs and people: http://www.petnet.com.au/openspace/posindex.html