Unleashed, pooches and their human pals have more in common than you’d think

By Matthew Gilbert

Globe Staff / May 31, 2011

(Note from SRD:  I loved this article (thanks to Brenda Kokubo for passing it on)!  It so clearly describes why we get up each morning, put on our grungiest sweatpants, and escort our doggies to the local park to meet their, and our, friends.  Especially, to me, it describes the bonding among dog owners: some become our closest friends, others will always be only the anonymous “Fido’s mom”; but with all we end up sharing a valuable connection.  People who come to public meetings to protest, in an exaggerated fashion anyway, “20 dog owners standing around with coffee cups” just don’t get it..that this is a community recreational activity as important to people as to their dogs.   This article is reprinted on our website with permission from its author, Matthew Gilbert…..please comment on the article and join the Pets group on boston.com!)

I get high every single day — from Amory Playground in Brookline. Overlooking Boston, with a front-row-balcony view of the Prudential, Amory’s dog-friendly hours are a daily dose of joy not just for my Yellow Lab, Toby, but for me. Like so many dog owners, when my dog goes off the leash, I do too.

Mostly, the rush is from being in the presence of freed animals in the city. I come to the dog park and leave behind so many of the rules of adulthood and city life. I roll into the parking lot, unhook Toby, and get pulled into this uncontrollable dog park world.

Even on rain-swept mornings, when the great field is sludgy and Toby’s rubber ball is an orb of mud, I like to go there, find a few like-minded congregants huddled under trees along the perimeter, and stand soaking with them. Sunny, dry days are better. We form a minyan of dog people, and we mumble together while our animals shake it up around us. The dogs improvise a biblical scene about dominance and submission, and they corral and chase one another into corners of the field like school kids at recess. We analyze their play, and we see ourselves in it.

I used to be clean most of the time, always soft-spoken, and unwilling to throw balls in public. I’d spend my spare “alone’’ time with my iPod on, or power-watching classic TV shows. Before Toby, who is now 6, I still stood a chance of seeing every episode of “Law & Order’’ ever made. Now, I rarely miss a morning at Amory, unconcerned about how imbecilic I look pitching the ball for Toby to fetch. Now my pants legs are ever-splotched from dog paws. After an hour, I am dirty and maybe stinky, too. More than once, I’ve been peed on by a dog, unaware until I detect an unusual warmth on my calf. My dog-averse friends will no longer take rides in my toy-cluttered, fur-flecked car.

There is something spiritual about these daily park visits, I am sure of that. They move me in ways my other quasi-religious forays — including one ground-rumbling mass “omm’’ in a Colorado forest — never did. Partly, the rush comes from the lushness of Amory, which includes two romantic baseball diamonds, a rim of fairy-tale weeping willows, and a pastoral hillside, for lying in the shade on perfect summer days. It’s an idyllic urban spot, like so many of the dog parks in this country; it’s one of the closest things to a fairground you’ll find on Boston’s Green line, between the B and C trolleys, a few blocks from Fenway Park and its interrogatory lights. With free admission, no dress code, squirrels on picnic tables, nannies with strollers, and the scent of pot occasionally tinging the breeze, the park carries the air of civilization at its most wistfully mundane.

But mostly, the rush is from the dogs — from being in the presence of freed animals in the city. I come to the dog park and leave behind so many of the rules and barriers of adulthood and city life. I roll into the parking lot, unhook Toby, and get pulled into this uncontrollable dog park world where sudden, unplanned things happen and where there are no traffic lights. While my DVR is sitting at home living by a tight schedule, I’m unplugged. I instantly feel a heightened pressure to be ready to spring into the moment of a dog fight, or one of the many owner fights, or to catch a dog charging into the street to chase cars. It’s liberating, to let go of the habit of circumspection and caution, to be more alert to the possibilities of the here and now. We become more dog-like at the park, even while we stand around brazenly anthropomorphizing our beloved pets into infants, TV characters, and, in the case of Quincy the Amazing Midair Frisbee-catching Collie, sports heroes.

Humans don’t bark — or do they? When we’re off-leash, we certainly do. In conversation with another dog owner, one of us inevitably has Tourette-like outbursts, mid-sentence. This doesn’t generally happen at a coffee shop or in the subway, among the civilized. But you can be confiding in a park friend about losing your keys, or losing your job, or losing your father, when she suddenly begins calling her dog — away from a puddle, away from a passerby on the walking path, or, in the case of the crumb-obsessed Toby, away from a baby carriage. And our calls aren’t gentle or even civil; they have enough raw affect to reach a brain that only hears affect. From “Daisy girl, DAYY-sy girl,’’ to “Come HERE Alexis,’’ we can be heard screaming out across the field. Despite a stubbornly mellow voice born for FM radio, I have had to become a scrappy newspaper hawker — “Toby COME, Toby COME,’’ again and again.

Collectively, we probably sound like hungry farm animals. Or maybe we’re a congregation of supplicants, yelling and yelling to be heard just once.

Maybe we sound like fools, too. Who cares. The anonymity of the park can be disarming, freeing. It’s part of the uplift, too. I can’t count how many deeply satisfying conversations I’ve had with strangers over the six years of Toby’s life, interactions charged solely with the love of or fascination with dogs. How strange and yet natural it is to share intimate details of your “goose’’ or “monkey’’ with someone you’ve never seen before and may never see again — a BU student, a homeless man, a suburban mom. In those moments, it feels like a small world. Or maybe a carnival, or a World Series game, or a Grateful Dead concert. Who you might be, or not be, outside the park borders doesn’t quite matter. Such social hierarchy has less weight on a rainy morning when you’re standing together wrapped in electric blue and orange nylon. If you know dogs, if you love dogs, if you are funny, if you’re a good listener, if you’re a good talker, then you can find your spot. We enter the park as pretty much just ourselves. It’s a purer hierarchy.

In many cases, we don’t even know one another’s names, just the dogs’ names. We’re unleashed from the burden of our names.

And, of course, we’re not all strangers. There is an attachment among park people that, after years, can be profound. I’ve made a few lifelong friends standing in that field. Many of us see our park mates more than we see friends out in the world; we’re the cast of “The Office’’ or “Cheers,’’ reading one another’s weaknesses, teasing as a sign of affection, noticing absences.

Indeed, this community of dog lovers has been the great bonus of the park. Dogs, little gusts of spirit, are a way into our own hearts, yes, but they are also a bridge to other people. We could be walking alone with our dogs, day in and day out, looping the neighborhood blocks, nodding or not nodding to the other dog owners on leash. I could be playing tug of war with Toby in the TV room, in front of an episode of “30 Rock.’’

But instead we choose to meet up, despite the social irritations and the occasional bad dog — or maybe because of the social irritations and the bad dogs and the ever-present potential for cracks in the surface. The tone of interaction usually isn’t very refined, as we pick up poop and carry it in plastic bags, its malodor assaulting our nostrils; as we pull humping dogs off their conquests by their collars and maybe reveal a glimpse of pink; as we share and overshare and listen to the rantings of the less tethered among us. We let it all hang out.

The dog play ushers in an atmosphere of extroversion and, sometimes unexpectedly, celebration. With the yelling, and the dirt, and the swirling dog energy accelerating our un-self-consciousness, it’s as though we’re children at the playground all over again. Forts are built and ponytails are tugged — figuratively, of course, but still. It’s as close to the unadorned, primitive socializing of “Peanuts’’ as I’ve known. Yes, all of the dynamic problems of groups (read: families) are in the air — the triangular tensions, the unrequited attractions, the ganging up, the passive-aggression. But they are in the air, and not subterranean. They are as obvious as the little mutt who thinks we can’t see she’s got a big, illicit clump of grass in her mouth.

One day recently, I took a step back and watched. Sitting under a maple tree on the hill that borders Amory and simply observing bodies in motion, I saw that the humans moved like the dogs, only at a much slower pace. The dogs — romping, chasing, looping — were an accelerated, time-lapse version of the people. As a group, the owners migrate slowly, curling forward, shedding and gaining members along their path; the dogs do it 30 times for their one.

Sitting up on the hill in that moment, watching the human and the canine social whirl side by side, I see all the movement in the park as a sky filled with planets and constellations. And the dogs are our shooting stars.

Globe TV critic Matthew Gilbert is working on a book about dog-park culture called “Off the Leash: Dispatches From the Dog Park.’’ He can be reached at gilbert@globe.com.

Nonetheless, the Board of Selectmen (who, in a 4-1 vote, opposed our proposal for Article 36 at last year’s hearing ) is now considering a “probation” plan for Robbins Farm Park and Menotomy Rocks Park, though it is not clear what that means.  It has been suggested, including by one Selectman at the meeting, that future actions could include suspending off-leash activity at both parks.  That Selectmen has also stated that Robbins and Menotomy are in a “crisis” situation.  The recent “probation” discussion appears to have been precipitated by a lengthy complaint, made by an individual who has consistently opposed off-leash recreation at Robbins, presented to the Board of Selectmen at their February 7, 2011 meeting.  A video of this meeting is available here.  In a followup meeting, March 14, the Selectmen said that, based on the Parks and Rec Commission recommendation, they will not at this time institute a “probation”, but some of them have alleged that they receive many complaints (one said that she doesn’t pass on 2/3 of the complaints she receives) to support the “crisis” status of Robbins and Menotomy that they are not making available to the public.  After at least one resident stated that making rulings based on secret information is not fair to the public (we do have Open Meeting Law governing our public process), one Selectman agreed to pass on any information she can in order to increase transparency. (There was further animated discussion at this meeting, which will also soon be made available to the public as a video.)

Another item brought up by members of the public was the need for some afternoon off-leash hours.  This will require a new vote from TM so we urge present and future TM members to get involved in this effort!

*******

Letter by David Monahan of FellsDOG:

November 19, 2010
Department of Conservation and Recreation
c/o Fells Trail Plan
136 Damon Road
Northampton, MA 01060
Re: Middlesex Fells Trail Plan

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to express to the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) my comments to the Middlesex Fells Reservation Draft Trail Plan. In summary, as a dog owner who has visited the Fells regularly with my dog for years, I am glad to see that the DCR has taken the needs of dog owners into account in drafting this plan, and has proposed a trial off-leash dog area or times at Sheepfold. But I must take issue with the fact that no provision has been made for designating trails for use by dog owners, and I also object to misleading and unsupported statements in Appendix E regarding the environmental impact of dogs. I thank the DCR for its thoughtful manner of devising a trail plan which protects this wonderful natural resource, and takes into account the needs of all user groups. It was encouraging to be invited to public meetings to hear and comment on the proposed plan, and the site visits to walk through the Fells with DCR staff were very informative.

I. The Middlesex Fells is part of the Urban Parks District The foundation of all plans for the Middlesex Fells should be recognition that it is an urban park. Under Chapter 92, Section 33 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Fells is within the “urban parks district”—designated as “open spaces for exercise and recreation.” While some nature groups would apparently like to cordon off the park so that their members can stand on the perimeter and gaze in with binoculars, that is not what the law provides. The good news is that the park is used every day of the year by Massachusetts residents who respect its natural beauty and the living things within it. These include large numbers of dog owners who visit the park with their dogs, and mountain bikers. Both groups are, primarily, responsible park users who respect the rights of other park users and treat our natural resources with great respect.

II. Dog owner use of the Fells
Dog owners use the Sheepfold and the trails throughout the Fells 365 days a year. Considering the large number of visitors to the Sheepfold on a daily basis, the park is remarkably clean and free of debris. Most dog owners are very careful to take out and deposit in the trash bin anything that they bring into the park. I commend the DCR for proposing an off-leash area or off-leash hours at Sheepfold, and I believe this idea is long overdue. I am involved with the Middlesex Fells Dog Owner Group (FellsDOG), and I know that this group and other area dog owner groups are prepared to work with the DCR and other user groups to help develop an appropriate plan for off-leash activity at the Sheepfold. The focus of our groups has always been to educate dog owners on the need to pick up dog waste every single time, and to supervise our dogs to ensure that they are playing safely and not interfering with other park users. We would be glad to serve this role as legal off-leash activity is rolled out at the Fells. I was pleased to see that the Trail System Plan includes engaging in various outdoor activities with the family dog among its “managed experiences” at the Fells. Dog owners also use the trails at the Fells in a responsible fashion. Considering the miles and miles of trails at the Fells, there is no reason why the DCR should not develop a plan to designate one or more trails as permissible for off-leash dog walking.

III. Misleading statements about the environmental impact of dogs
I object to misleading statements in Appendix E under the heading “What are the Impacts of Dogs and Dog Walking?” They give the impression that dogs are more damaging to the environment than the cited studies actually state. The first paragraph of that section gives the impression that dogs are a major cause of fecal coliform bacteria in water supplies. But all available research, including cases cited in this section, show waterfowl, gulls, and pigeons to be a much greater source of fecal coliform in water supplies than dogs, and note that cats, squirrels, raccoons, rats, and other animals all contribute to fecal coliform levels. This section cites a 1996 report issued by Alderisio, Wait, and Sobsey regarding the New York City Water Supply. But that report, based on research at the Kensico Reservoir in Westchester County, noted the need for resources “to investigate and mitigate potential nonhuman sources such as waterfowl and gulls, as well as other wildlife in the Kensico watershed.” It made no mention of dogs. For more on the various sources of non-human fecal coliform bacteria, see Focus: Bacteria in the Issaquah Creek Basin, Washington State Department of Ecology (2004), http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0410038.pdf The second paragraph of that section similarly overstates the impact of dog walking on wildlife. One would think that the litany of scientific studies cited was damning evidence of the negative impact of dogs. But the studies listed simply do not support the hypothesis. For instance, the Nol and Brooks study on Effects of Predator Exclosures on Nesting Success of Killdeer describes the predatory actions of gulls, raccoons, and other mammals—it makes no mention of dogs. The George and Crooks study on Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve finds negative “relative activity” impacts upon coyotes, bobcats, and mule deer to be greater from hikers and bikers than from dogs. And the Miller, Knight, Miller report Wildlife responses to pedestrians and dogs showed that the general area of influence on most wildlife was less for a dog walking alone than it was for a person walking alone. We all agree that the impact of dogs on wildlife should be taken into account when formulating a trail plan for the Fells or any other park. But let us not overstate the impact that dogs have as compared to hikers and bikers.

IV. The benefits of activity with dogs
Finally, I note that the plan goes to great lengths to attempt to document the negative impact of dogs, but not to note the benefits. I will refer to one study which says it well:
Benefits of dogs:
• As dogs need daily walking, their owners gain benefits from regular exercise and access to the countryside.

• Dog ownership results in important health, psychological and social benefits for all family members.

• Studies have shown that dog ownership produces beneficial physiological effects in people such as favourable changes in blood lipids, glucose, blood pressure, immune levels and pain relief.

Taylor, K., Anderson, P., Taylor, R., Longden, K. and Fisher, P., 2005. Dogs,
access and nature conservation. English Nature, ENRR No. 649.
The same study goes on, after noting that dogs do have some impact on wildlife, to state:
[S]uch is the benefit that dogs bring and the widespread expectation that dog owners can take their dogs into the countryside, it is impractical to consider banning dogs from all sites of nature conservation value. Evidence suggests that integrated management strategies can be devised (based on control of dogs and influencing their owners) that will reduce the impact of dogs on many nature conservation sites, and seek mutually beneficial solutions.

I would suggest that the DCR should maintain the same balanced approach as it fine tunes and implements a new Middlesex Fells Trail Plan.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to the planning process.
Sincerely,
/s/ David W. Monahan
David W. Monahan
********

More information:

To see the current Middlesex Fells Trail Plan and related materials: Middlesex Fells Trail Plan link at DCR

To give input to the DCR on off-leash recreation, write to:

Paul Jahnige
Middlesex Fells Trail Plan
136 Damon Rd
Northampton, MA 01060
paul.jahnige@state.ma.us

It is also useful to contact your state Representative (for Arlington, Reps Sean Garballey, Jay Kaufman, Will Brownsberger) and state Senator (for Arlington, Sen. Ken Donnelly) regarding making our state parks, including the Fells, more hospitable to responsible off leash recreation.

From April 29, 2010:

Letters supporting the Substitute Motion under Article 36, to allow early-morning responsible off-leash recreation in Arlington parks:

Letter: Consider off-leash hours
By Ellen Duranceau
GateHouse News Service
Posted Apr 29, 2010 @ 06:30 AM
Arlington, Mass. —

I was disappointed by the Board of Selectmen’s “no action” vote on a warrant article that would allow the Parks & Recreation Commission to designate some early morning hours in some areas for walking dogs off leash. I am writing in the hopes that Town Meeting members will consider the issue independently of the selectmen’s comments.

The board’s stated reservations seem wrong-headed. One is that no further bylaw amendments should be considered until dog owners stop violating the existing leash law. Because the current law doesn’t allow dogs to run anywhere in town, this is an unrealistic expectation, and presents an impossible dilemma for those of us attempting to be responsible citizens and responsible dog owners as well. If the existing law was workable, most people wouldn’t violate it.

The other reservation offered by the board, that we should wait to see what happens with plans for a fenced dog park before making any other changes, also doesn’t make sense. Even if a fenced dog park was created, this would not solve the problem for the many dogs and their owners who won’t live near the park, or whose dogs are too vulnerable or shy to participate in rough-and-tumble play with dogs they don’t know.

Dogs have co-evolved with humans for more than 12,000 years to develop a unique interspecies bond. Dogs provide emotional support and significant service (including acting as police dogs, rescue dogs, seeing eye dogs, seizure detection dogs, and therapy dogs among many other roles) in our society. Yes, it is difficult to accommodate the needs of all the human citizens of Arlington with our limited open space. But it’s time for Arlington to join neighboring towns and allow normal exercise and socialization for dogs and their owners. It’s time to stop telling us dog owners that we are criminals for having the same needs as those in Cambridge, Burlington and many other towns, where those needs are met.

The Board of Selectmen should be calling for change, not for adherence to a set of rules that don’t work. — Ellen Duranceau, Chatham St.
**************************

Letter: Socialization is important
By Robin Varghese
GateHouse News Service
Posted Apr 29, 2010 @ 06:30 AM
Arlington, Mass. —

My family and I recently moved to Arlington for the progressive values, good schools and playgrounds for my young children. I have largely stayed out of the local political scene until I heard about the difficulty responsible Arlington dog owners have had obtaining permission to use portions of the public parks to exercise and socialize their dogs with other responsible dog owners.

I have a 6-month-old puppy that does not bark in my yard nor jump on visitors, which is in large part due to socialization I’ve been able to do with other responsible dog owners. It is a shame that Arlington residents have nowhere to legally allow their dogs off leash. Many of the surrounding communities either provide off-leash areas or are off-leash towns.

All dog trainers, books and classes that dog owners look to for advice insist that opportunities to socialize dogs allow them to be trained to be good members of our community. These currently illegal activities make our neighborhoods more peaceful, as a well-exercised dog is a quiet dog. Also, dog owners that may not always pick up after their dogs are reminded of their responsibilities to do so by responsible dog owners when they are together in groups and encouraged to help support off-leash laws.

My children also enjoy playing fetch with our dog and given the small lot size of Arlington homes, it is difficult to do so on our private property. In Arlington, there is no place for us to play fetch, toss a Frisbee or play outside with our family pet.

Surrounding communities provide such opportunities, however, we are prohibited from allowing our dog off leash in the neighboring areas (i.e. Cambridge), as we are not residents. I would like to encourage your readers to write to their Town Meeting representatives and ask for their support during the upcoming Town Meeting and support Article 36. Please help us feel proud to be dog owners in Arlington, a progressive community that respects and hopefully will provide resources for families and “man’s best friend,” the family dog, to play together. — Robin Varghese, Chester St.
***************

Letter: Support Article 36
By Tina Silberman
GateHouse News Service
Posted Apr 29, 2010 @ 06:30 AM
Arlington, Mass. —

As a resident of Arlington and a dog owner, I am writing to express my gratitude to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their support of proposed Article 36 to allow dogs to be off leash at our parks until 9 a.m. I am also writing to encourage Town Meeting members to consider supporting this article as well.

I am incredibly disappointed that after all of the time and effort that has gone into the creation of a suitable compromise plan such as Green Dog, or this new article, that the Board of Selectmen (with the exception of Kevin Greeley), and in particular, Clarissa Rowe, who spent so much time helping to craft the Green Dog Plan, voted No Action on this proposed article.

And, to add insult to injury, the following comment was issued in the report from the BoS to Town Meeting, “[a] majority of the [b]oard also feels the behavior of dog-owners who routinely violate the leash law needs to change before a bylaw amendment should be considered again.”

Who will be monitoring and tracking the behavior of the dog owners in order to decide when exactly a leash law amendment should be considered again? Is the same group going to be monitoring all of the other laws that are broken regarding behavior at our parks? Such as littering, unauthorized cutting of trees and bushes, fires, gatherings after parks are closed?

Things have escalated over the past few weeks and we now have the police issuing warnings and tickets to dog owners who have their dogs off leash at 6:30 a.m. at the parks. While they are indeed breaking the law, I question the harm they are doing, as well as the selective enforcement of only this law. And, I truly hope that a more serious crime is not committed while the police are spending their time enforcing the leash laws.

The time is now to resolve this divisive issue in our town so that the BoS and Town Meeting can turn their attention to the much more pressing issues that are facing our community.

Town Meeting members, please support Article 36, I would hate to think that a vocal minority of residents have a louder voice than the rest of us. — Tina Silberman, Cedar Avenue
***************

Letter: Dogs need more
By Stephen, Margie, Lindsay and Savannah Weil
GateHouse News Service
Posted Apr 29, 2010 @ 06:30 AM
Arlington, Mass. —

I’ve been a resident of Arlington for the past 32 years and a dog owner for most of that time. In my personal experience, I have never had a confrontation with anyone who is afraid of dogs, dislikes them or is concerned about their impact on the environment or the community.

I believe this is the case because my family and I are all responsible dog owners who understand that not all people respond to dogs the way that we do.

Our children grew up with dogs. In fact, our younger daughter picked out our 130 pound large breed dog when she was 5 years old and has been hooked on them ever since. (She is now 21, and we have a new large breed dog as a member of the family.)

We are respectful of our neighbors, we pick up after our dog (no matter how far into the woods she defecates), she is under voice control when not on a leash, and she loves to romp and play with people and at 145 pounds loves dogs of all sizes and ages. (Her best friend is a 15-pound Terrier who comes to our house for “play dates.”)

But she needs more room than our backyard (not to mention an enclosed dog park) can provide to really get the exercise and socialization that she needs and deserves. Just like all of the opponents of off-leash dogs, I am a taxpayer and law-abiding citizen of Arlington. I believe that my dog and me should be afforded the same rights as any other taxpaying, law-abiding citizen. This includes full, complete and equal use of the public facilities that my tax dollars support.

That said, I understand that certain members of our community believe that dog owners are putting an additional tax on our meager town budget. For that reason, I have always and will continue to support a fee-based system for dog owners that will help defray the cost of “rangers” or other expenses incurred. But if I have to pay more, then I expect the respect and support of the town to be able to walk my dog in a fashion that is conducive to both my family’s and her mental, physical and emotional good health. — Stephen, Margie, Lindsay and Savannah Weil, Bailey Road
*********************

Letter: Help Arlington move forward
By Susan R. Doctrow
GateHouse News Service
Posted Apr 29, 2010 @ 06:30 AM
Arlington, Mass. —

I urge my fellow Town Meeting (TM) members to support Article 36, allowing limited off-leash recreation for responsible dog owners. I last wrote to the Advocate on this issue in 2007, supporting the Green Dog Plan. In 2008, with others, I founded Arlington Dog Owners Group (A-DOG), whose petition for legal off-leash recreation has been signed by over 900 Arlingtonians.

The Green Dog Plan was narrowly defeated at TM in 2009, with concerns including its complexity. This year, the town established a Dog Park Task Force, to explore possible fenced dog parks, which have been legal here for seven years without positive action. A member of this task force, I feel its goals complement those of Article 36.

As I wrote in 2007, we need “an intelligent alternative to Arlington’s excessively rigid leash bylaw. We dog owners should no longer be made to feel like criminals in our own community, simply for trying to maximize the health, happiness and longevity of our family pets through exercise and socialization. Public parks belong to all of us, and all users should be able to share the benefits of these open spaces in a mutually respectful manner.”

Under Article 36, we propose early morning off-leash recreation under effective owner control, with several excluded sites and, most important, with Parks and Recreation Commission authority to exclude any other sites. While this adds much flexibility, and is consistent with its role in other municipalities, some have voiced concerns that the commission would not allow public input or is otherwise not to be trusted. Our proposal is conservative compared to other bylaws (e.g. Lexington, Bedford, Burlington, Wellesley) allowing dogs off-leash in virtually all parks at all hours.

With one very thoughtful dissenting vote by Selectman Kevin Greeley, the Board of Selectmen voted “no action” on Article 36, reporting to TM that “behavior of dog-owners who routinely violate the leash law needs to change before a bylaw amendment should be considered again.”

With due respect to those four selectmen, this penalizes responsible dog owners for the actions of the irresponsible few. As noted by one supporter, driver’s licenses are not denied to all because some drivers cause accidents. The Parks and Recreation Commission subsequently voted to support our proposal, noting its simplicity and reasonableness. I hope that TM agrees, helping Arlington to finally move forward on this issue. — Susan R. Doctrow, Westminster Avenue
*************

And, in support of the important and complementary work of Arlington’s Dog Park Task Force, to create fenced Off Leash Recreation Areas:

Letter: Essential to dog’s health
By Alice Bouvrie
GateHouse News Service
Posted Apr 29, 2010 @ 06:30 AM
Arlington, Mass. —

It is essential to the health, happiness and well being of all our citizens in Arlington that we have a fenced in dog park where our dogs and owners may socialize and exercise. There are ramps for our handicapped citizens, buzzers at the lights for our sight-impaired citizens, bike paths and lanes for our cyclists, and we should have designated dog parks for our pets and owners.

When as many of our citizens as possible are justly accommodated, we all do better as a community. I hope that we can implement a viable dog park in Arlington soon, and from there we can make adjustments. — Alice Bouvrie, Woodside Lane

**********
AND a new set from the following week, May 6. Six letters from proponents of Article 36 and two from apparent opponents:

Letter: Wonderful compromise
By Amanda Sullivan
GateHouse News Service
Posted May 06, 2010 @ 03:15 PM
Arlington, Mass. —

I am writing to ask the Town Meeting members to support Article 36, which would allow Arlington dogs to be off leash in local parks specified by the Parks and Recreation Commission until the hour of 9 a.m.

My husband and I are Arlington residents who have lived in town for more than six years, and have been dog owners for more than four years. Over the years, we have met many Arlington dog owners and their family pets. I have been very impressed with Arlington residents’ behavior as dog owners — making sure their dog is under voice control and well behaved as well as picking up their dogs waste.

Our dog is friendly, happy and well behaved largely because we make sure she is exercised daily. I find it very frustrating to not be able to play fetch with my dog in a park in my own town, especially when so many neighboring towns, such as Burlington, Lexington and Cambridge, have dog parks or reasonable off-leash laws. Many of these towns only allow their own residents to utilize the dog parks, making it impossible for Arlington residents to legally allow their dogs off leash for socializing and exercise purposes.

I urge Town Meeting members to vote in favor of article 36; it is a wonderful compromise that would Arlington dog owners and our family pets to finally be able to use some of the parks and facilities our tax dollars are paying for in a controlled manner. — Amanda Sullivan, Ronald Rd

*****
Letter: We can coexist
By Jennifer Stone
GateHouse News Service
Posted May 06, 2010 @ 03:14 PM
Arlington, Mass. —

I was thrilled to see the number of letters in favor of Article 36. As a responsible dog owner living and paying taxes in Arlington, I find it amazing that I cannot socialize, and exercise my dog legally in town.

I’ve heard the complaints of the mess it would create, and I ask you, have you seen a soccer field after a Saturday’s worth of youth games? The litter is everywhere, but no one reasonably expects games to be stopped because of the actions of the minority. The responsible dog owners are being penalized for the anticipated behavior of a few.

I lived in San Francisco for two years with my dog, near a small city park that was a major tourist attraction, (the ‘painted ladies’ Victorian homes border the park), and the dogs, residents, and tourists all coexisted. If a city as densely populated as San Francisco can figure out how to allow dogs some freedom, I can’t imagine how Arlington can not. — Jennifer Stone, Ridge Street

*****

Letter: The sky will not fall
By Iain Miller
GateHouse News Service
Posted May 06, 2010 @ 03:04 PM
Arlington, Mass. —

I’d like to urge Town Meeting to accept the very reasonable Article 36 provision for early morning off-leash exercise and socialization rights, at the discretion of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

As one of the sponsors of this article, I’d note the recent unanimous support of the commission. Notably, this article also reflects feedback from the discussion at Town Meeting last year (at which the more complex Green Dog program was narrowly voted down, partly on grounds of complexity), and culminates about eight years of efforts by many responsible dog owners in our town.

While a task force has indeed been established to consider a very limited number of fenced areas, the reality is that such expensive facilities will likely be several years in the making, and not accessible to all. In the interim, I feel that it is long past time for Arlington to join our progressive neighbors such as Somerville and Lexington by taking an interim (no cost) step to de-criminalize a recreational activity that brings many neighbors together. I’ll confidently predict that the sky will not fall and we can all move on. — Iain Miller, Kensington Park
******

Letter: Say ‘yes’ to Article 36
By Mary McCartney
GateHouse News Service
Posted May 06, 2010 @ 03:01 PM
Arlington, Mass. —

The issue of off-leash dogs has been controversial for Arlington for a number of years, but I believe Article 36, which will be up for vote soon at Town Meeting, is a terrific compromise.

This article will allow dogs to be off-leash, under effective handler control, during early morning hours. It will allow the Parks and Recreation Commission the authority to exclude specific sites. And it specifically excludes school grounds and grounds near playground equipment.

This article is much more conservative than other surrounding communities. The parks are not heavily used during these hours, and I believe this article does a good job of balancing the needs of responsible dog owners with other park users.

The parks are a shared resource. Dog owners are taxpayers too. As a responsible dog owner myself, I value the time I spend with other dog owners, and enjoy that sense of community.

I encourage my fellow Town Meeting members join me in voting in favor of Article 36. — Mary McCartney, Town Meeting Member, Precinct 1, Michael Street
*****

Letter: Give us something to lose
By Jennifer Goebel
GateHouse News Service
Posted May 06, 2010 @ 02:58 PM
Arlington, Mass. —

Give us something to lose

I am writing to express my support for off-leash recreation time for dogs as proposed in Article 36 of this year’s Town Meeting warrant. Right now, there is no way for Arlington dog owners to be responsible dog owners and follow the leash law.

We have learned a lot about canine behavior and health since this restriction was put into place many years ago, and we now know that off-leash time is important for not only the health of the dog, but also its socialization. A tired dog is a good dog. A well-socialized dog is a friendly, well-behaved dog. Common sense says that every one in this town has an interest in Arlington dogs being well-exercised and well-socialized, whether you love them or hate them.

What we have now is all stick and no carrot.

If the town votes against this rule — again — and we continue with the status quo, nothing will improve for anyone. Dog owners will continue to run their dogs off-leash whenever and wherever they think it’s appropriate and convenient because we have nothing to lose. Give us something to lose. — Jennifer Goebel, Sunset Road
******

Letter: An excellent approach
By Monique Chaplin
GateHouse News Service
Posted May 06, 2010 @ 02:55 PM
Arlington, Mass. —

I am writing to express my appreciation to the Parks and Recreation Commission for supporting Article 36, the “off-leash dog hours” article. I feel that Article 36 is a reasonable, reasoned approach to making our shared parks accessible to all users, in a way that is least disruptive to all.

I am the owner of a young and exuberant dog who has learned through socialization with other dogs, and consistent training, to be a good “citizen” among other dogs, while remaining under good voice control. I believe that Article 36, which leaves decisions about which parks and what hours should be determined “off-leash” is an excellent approach to making our parks accessible to responsible dog owners of Arlington.

I encourage our Town Meeting members to vote in favor of this article. — Monique Chaplin, Michael Street

*******

Letter: Kids before dogs
By Michael Jacoby Brown
GateHouse News Service
Posted May 06, 2010 @ 02:52 PM
Arlington, Mass. —

To call unleashing dogs “green” is a sad misnomer. Allowing dogs to run free in Arlington will do nothing to “green” the town or the planet. When our public schools are facing a financial crisis and we are laying off teachers, spending any money on dogs (building fences for dog parks, etc.) puts dogs ahead of children. Does the town spend money on dogs before children?

If dog owners want “early morning” hours to allow their dogs to run free, “early morning” does not mean up to 9 a.m. From 7 to 9 a.m., many children are going to school or other activities. To put unleashed dogs in the path of children is not the way to go for our children’s safety. — Michael Jacoby Brown, Brattle Terrace
*******

Letter: Need to co-exist respectfully
By Mary Ellen Bilafer
GateHouse News Service

Posted May 06, 2010 @ 02:51 PM
Arlington, Mass. —

I hope to present a unique point of view regarding the current leash law debate and Article 36, which proposes off-leash times in Arlington’s parks.

On Patriots’ Day, I took my leashed dog to Menotomy Rocks Park. As a Town Meeting member and dog owner, I’m aware of the efforts of the A-DOG Committee. I agree that dogs benefit from off-leash areas. I appreciate their efforts and understand the reasoning behind them. However, there are currently no legally established off-leash areas in Arlington. Why then, were almost all of the 15 to 20 dogs I came across off leash?

One can assume this was a fair representation of Arlington dog owners, and not an irresponsible minority as some suggest I have seen the same thing in several other parks around town. I wonder how many “non-dog” citizens avoid the parks for this reason?

When I politely informed a few owners of the leash law, I was consistently met with rudeness and indifference. As a lifelong resident of Arlington, I was disappointed to see such a selfish attitude from my fellow citizens. Not everyone should be subjected to a dog running at him or her in a public area when he or she has an expectation that all dogs will be leashed.

I love my dog but am not so arrogant to assume that everyone will love her as much as I do. There are some people who are very uncomfortable with dogs and it’s also a safety issue — especially when children are involved. No animal is 100% predictable — no matter how confident the owner is to the contrary.

If I choose, however, to go to an off-leash area, I accept these risks and know what to expect … I do not foist those risks onto others who haven’t decided to accept them. Some have suggested that it’s OK to break this law simply because it is unfair. I disagree. When/if off-leash areas are established, then it will be clear who can enjoy the parks freely, and when and where. Designating fenced areas is the safest and most clear-cut option in my opinion and allows for fair park usage for all.

It’s still unclear what will be decided at Town Meeting … but until the situation changes, we need to co-exist respectfully so that everyone can comfortably enjoy the parks. It’s simply unfair otherwise. — Mary Ellen Bilafer, Cutter Hill Road
********
And, from May 13, two more in favor, none opposed:

Letter: Should not be limited
By Catherine Solovay
GateHouse News Service
Posted May 13, 2010 @ 05:53 PM
Arlington, Mass. —

I would like to express my support for Article 36 permitting limited places and times for off-leash exercise of dogs by responsible owners. Dog ownership is a responsibility, but one that can bring great joy to a family. It is also our responsibility to give our dogs appropriate exercise, and at the moment, I need to drive to another town daily in order to properly give my dog a run. I do not think that the pleasures and health benefits of dog ownership should be limited to families with cars, or wealth enough for an abundant fenced yard. I urge a vote in favor of Article 36. — Catherine Solovay, Kenilworth Rd.

***********

Letter: Building a community
By Lana Petersson
GateHouse News Service
Posted May 13, 2010 @ 05:52 PM
Arlington, Mass. —

This morning, while our dogs were playing, I had a great conversation with a fellow dog owner that made me realize why I support the limited off-leash laws. We didn’t talk about anything in particular, it was just nice to have company and meet someone new from the neighborhood. It put me in a good mood all day.

I left realizing why I care so much about the leash law: it creates congregation spots that create a great community, the same way a jungle gym does. I know people from all over East Arlington, and not just dog-owners, because my dog introduces us when we might not have otherwise approached each other. When we were looking to buy our first house, it was this feeling of community that kept us in the same neighborhood (literally, three streets down) as opposed to the more dog-friendly Cambridge. Some of this happens on leash, but if we’re out, it’s usually to get some exercise and we’re on the move.

I can be shy but love making connections, this is the reason why I love having a dog so much, and why I’m in big favor of a limited off-leash law that lets us all socialize together. I am especially in favor of limited times and places. The wonderful thing about community space like fields is bringing people together, in all different ways, at different times of day, and learning how to all share a space to build a healthy community for everyone involved. — Lana Petersson, Milton Street
***********

We support the following Substitute Motion under Article 36:

To amend Section 8 (“Animal Control”) of Article 1 (“Use of Areas under Control of Park Department”) of Title IV (“Public Areas”) and/or Article 2 (“Canine Control”) of Title VIII (“Public Health and Safety”) of the By-Laws so as to allow a maximum of three dogs per owner 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.
********************************************
The Board of Selectmen (BoS) voted (4-1) “no action” on our proposed motion under Article 36 at its March 22 hearing. The BoS has reported to TM that “behavior of dog-owners who routinely violate the leash law needs to change before a bylaw amendment should be considered again.” With due respect to those 4 Selectmen, this penalizes responsible dog owners for the actions of the irresponsible few. As noted by one supporter at the BoS hearing, driver’s licenses are not denied to all because some drivers cause accidents. Another concern voiced by one Selectman at the hearing was that there were no provisions to exclude out of town dog owners. We respectfully take issue with this concern on two grounds. First, it is unlikely that many dog owners will drive to Arlington from other towns in the early mornings that we propose. And, even if some do, it is questionable that they will have much impact. Second, our parks are public space. Some of us from Arlington now use parks in Lexington, where dogs are allowed off leash. We would hope to extend the same courtesy to our Lexington and other neighbors and, again, doubt that there would be much impact from outsiders at the proposed hours. The BoS report also advises waiting to see what the Parks and Recreation Commission, through its “Dog Park Task Force” (called the “Green Dog Subcommittee” in the report), decides with respect to fenced off leash recreation areas. We are very familiar with the work of this Task Force and, in fact, one of us is an appointed member. As discussed further below, we believe that Article 36 complements the Task Force’s mission.
On April 13, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously (4-0) to support our proposed bylaw change, noting, for example, its simplicity and reasonableness, as well as its flexibility. We hope that TM will agree with the Parks and Recreation Commission’s assessment and vote in favor of this Substitute Motion.
********************************

Article 36 FAQ (Summary)
(See the following pages for full discussion)

➢ Why propose this Article for the third year in a row? TM transcripts describe the current leash law, enacted in the late 60’s, as being aimed at dogs “at large”, or roaming free. When it is used instead against owner-supervised dog play groups, it prevents dog owners from exercising and socializing their dogs, and from a community activity they themselves enjoy.

➢ Why propose this Article when TM rejected the Green Dog plan last year? This vote was narrow (88 opposed, 83 in favor), and the need and demand for legal off-leash recreational options continues. Feedback from TM included comments that the Green Dog plan was too complex, and that many had favored the amendment to limit hours to mornings (by 10 am). Article 36 addresses such experience and feedback.

➢ Why isn’t it enough for dog owners to have the Town working on fenced off leash recreation facilities? Even though Town has established a “Dog Park Task Force” to address this issue, it is not clear when or if there will be a sufficient number of fenced off leash recreational areas (OLRA) to serve Arlington’s dog owner community. Article 36 acts in parallel to the work of the Dog Park Task Force.

➢ Why the proposed hours of “park opening time until 9 am”? Arlington parks are used quite sparsely early in the morning. The intent of our proposed hours is to be conservative. In several other MA towns dogs are allowed off-leash, under effective control, in virtually all parks at all open hours.

➢ Why the phrase “effective owner control”? This requires that only dogs accompanied by their owner, and under control, would be allowed off-leash. Other MA town bylaws have similar wording (“complete and effective control”, “effective command”, etc.).

➢ Why “lands under control of the Parks and Recreation Commission”? These lands would exclude potential areas of concern, including the bike path, Town Hall gardens, cemetery, and conservation land.

➢ Why “by specific exclusion by the Parks and Recreation Commission”? This adds flexibility, avoiding the need for specific locations to be debated in TM. It recognizes and respects the role and the authority of Parks and Recreation Commission, appointed to make detailed decisions on use of our public parks.

➢ Why not propose a pilot plan? We trust that the Parks and Recreation Commission will act in good faith to implement a flexible bylaw such as this one. It is essentially a pilot plan anyway, because the Commission can exclude any park, or all parks, at any time.

➢ What will this cost the Town? There should be no significant cost to the Town. We already have an ACO to enforce the leash law, including distributing flyers describing the leash law. With last year’s decision to increase the license fee by up to 50% and impose late fees, dog owners are now being charged more, providing some extra revenue with no increase in privileges.

➢ Why “a maximum of three dogs”? For consistency with our town bylaws that allow up to three dogs per household, and with similar limits specified in other off-leash programs.

Article 36 Substitute Motion — Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ):

Why propose this Article for the third year in a row?
Based on TM transcripts, major provisions of our current leash law were voted in at TM in the late 60’s. Concern was primarily with dogs “at large”, or roaming free. It was not intended to be used, as it is today, against owner-supervised dog playgroups, which were uncommon, if not nonexistent, in that era. The behavioral benefits of well-exercised, well-socialized dogs are now well accepted by animal behaviorists, dog trainers and others. In addition, meeting with their neighbors to exercise and socialize their dogs together is a community activity much enjoyed by dog owners, as the response to A-DOG’s and Green Dog committee efforts has demonstrated. Over 900 Arlington residents, to date, have signed A-DOG’s petition in favor of off-leash recreation for responsible dog owners in Arlington. Many other communities in MA and across the nation have recognized the needs of their tax-paying dog-owning residents by modernizing their leash laws. It is time that Arlington did so, as well – there has been at least 8 years of work on this issue in our town, with no implementation of any off-leash privileges.

Why propose this Article when TM rejected the Green Dog plan last year?
The need and demand for legal off-leash recreational options continues. Last year, with their recommended vote to TM, the BoS indicated approval of the spirit of the Green Dog plan, to enable responsible off leash recreation at certain times in certain parks. The vote at TM was very close (83 affirmative to 88 negative). Several TM members later told us that they felt the measure would have gained more support if the Green Dog Plan were not so complex and/or if the narrowly defeated last-minute proposed amendment for only morning hours (up to 10 am) had passed. We can never know for sure if that is true, but it is our recollection that nearly half of TM supported the amendment to restrict the Green Dog Plan to mornings. Two years ago (2008), TM voted “No Action” on an Article similar to Article 36 (#28). At that time, the primary reason cited, including in the Selectmen’s recommendation for “no action”, was the need to give the Green Dog committee time to do its work. Nonetheless, even then, several TM members supported a substitute motion for positive action, with some proposing amendments that would enable their support. Our Substitute Motion under Article 36 addresses what we learned from experience and feedback from other TM members, on both previous attempts.

Why isn’t it enough for dog owners to have the Town working on fenced off leash recreation facilities?
Fenced off leash recreation areas (OLRA) have been legal in Arlington for 7 years, but the Town has yet to establish any. (In contrast, in Somerville, a Dog Owners Task Force formed in 2004, the first OLRA was constructed in 2006, and today there are 2 operational OLRAs, 1 more in advanced planning, and 2 more under serious consideration. The Somerville Open Space and Recreation Plan, 2008-2013, highlights off leash recreation in Somerville as a “Success Story”.) Many dog owners, including us, are encouraged that the Town has now established a “Dog Park Task Force” to identify possible sites and work out details. Some of us have been named to this Task Force and have begun working constructively with fellow members. Still, such OLRA are costly, each at least $200,000, based on the experiences of Boston and Somerville, as well as other information gathered, so far, by our Task Force. With budgetary and other constraints, it is not clear when there will be a sufficient number of fenced OLRA to serve Arlington’s dog owner community. In addition, even if unlimited financial and open-space resources were available, a fenced OLRA is not appropriate for all neighborhood parks and for all users. (Indeed some TM members indicated they did not support the Green Dog Plan in 2009 because it included fenced OLRAs.) Other programs, most notably NYC’s very successful off-leash recreation program (http://www.nycoffleash.com/html/FAQ.htm) rely on a combination of dedicated fenced facilities at some parks and “shared hours” at others. We believe that the best solution for Arlington will also include both approaches, and feel that Article 36 works in parallel to the work of the Dog Park Task Force, with complementary goals.

Why the proposed hours of “park opening time til 9 am”?
As noted above, we learned from last year’s Green Dog debate in TM that morning hours were less controversial and that the motion to restrict hours to prior to 10 am is regarded as one that would have strengthened chances of passage. In our proposal, hours are limited even further to end at 9 am. In NYC, the default off-leash hours in shared-use parks are from 9 pm til 9 am, unless a park closes at night, as ours do. This has apparently worked well for over 20 years in a very densely populated city. Those of us who visit Arlington parks early in the morning know that they are used quite sparsely at this time. We believe that the proposed hours would have minimum impact on park usage, and would give responsible dog owners the option to exercise and socialize their dogs before going to work and/or helping their children get to school. The hours will not be optimal for all dog owners, but we believe that they will be useful to many. The intent of restricting hours in this proposal is to be conservative. In several other MA towns (e.g. Lexington, Bedford, Burlington, Acton, Concord, Lincoln, and Wellesley) dogs are allowed off-leash, under effective control, in virtually all parks at all open hours.

Why the phrase “effective owner control”?
This requires that only dogs accompanied by the human owner, and under control, would be allowed off-leash. Article 36 is not intended to provide an opportunity for dog owners to allow their dog to run “at large”, or to enable out of control dogs to run through private property, jump on people, attack other dogs, or otherwise cause problems. Complaints about out of control dogs should be addressed by the Animal Control Officer (ACO), if necessary, as well as by peer pressure from other dog owners. In other bylaws, similar wording is used, for example:

Acton: “complete and effective control”
Brookline: “must control the animal”
Bedford: “effective voice control”, “effective control of its owner”
Burlington: “obedient to command”
Concord: “under the control of its owner”
Lexington: “effective command”

Under this bylaw, owners who cannot or will not control their dogs would always be in violation. Owners playing fetch with their dogs, supervising their dogs playing with other dogs, or conducting other harmless, enjoyable activities with their dogs prior to 9 am, would not.

Why “lands under control of the Parks and Recreation Commission”?
These lands would exclude potential areas of concern, including the bike path, Town Hall gardens, cemetery, and conservation land. We learned that, in Arlington, this is preferable to the overly broad term “open spaces” that was proposed in 2008, though the term is used in other town bylaws, most notably Bedford’s (below). Interestingly, Bedford’s bylaw also distinguishes a dog “at large” from one under “effective control of its owner”.

From Town of Bedford bylaws, Article 42.5.1 Dogs Running at Large (Leash Law Provisions):
“No owner or keeper of any dog shall permit their dog to run at large at anytime. An owner or keeper of a dog must accompany and restrain the dog on a leash or accompany with leash in hand and maintain effective voice control of the dog while off their own property. An obedient dog which is under the effective control of its owner may be permitted to be unleashed in Town-owned open spaces within the Town. Dogs must be on a leash on bike paths and at public events. No dogs are allowed in cemeteries. The provision of this paragraph shall not apply to a guide dog or service dog while actually engaged in the performance of its trained duties.”

Why “by specific exclusion of the Parks and Recreation Commission”?
This adds flexibility, avoiding the need for specific locations to be debated in TM. It recognizes and respects the role and authority of the Parks and Recreation Commission. In Brookline, the bylaw change that passed at TM allowing a Green Dog Plan was general (see below), leaving it up to the Parks and Recreation Commission to establish details of off-leash use and, importantly, to modify this use whenever needed. We believe that Parks and Recreation Commission’s role should be accorded similar respect and authority in Arlington, and that it is not necessarily a productive use of TM time to debate details of implementation. In Arlington, we have a Parks and Recreation Commission, appointed by our Town Manager, with approval by our elected Selectmen, to make detailed decisions on use of our public parks.

From Town of Brookline Bylaws, SECTION 8.6.7(a) RESTRAINT OF DOGS:
“However, in areas officially designated as designated off
leash area by the Park and Recreation Commission, or its
designee, a dog shall be allowed to be off the leash under
the following conditions…”

Why not propose a pilot plan?
We believe that there is no need to make this a pilot plan, subject to even more TM debate next year and in subsequent years. We trust that the Parks and Recreation Commission will act in good faith to implement a flexible bylaw such as this one. It is essentially a pilot plan anyway, because the Parks and Recreation Commission can act to exclude all parks, though, we are trusting them not to do so. Under this bylaw, the Commission might, for example, choose to exclude a park it deems “controversial”, conduct a public review process and, potentially, designate specific sub-areas only, or no areas at all, for morning off-leash recreation. And, of course, TM can vote in a more restrictive leash law in future years.

What will this cost the Town?
As we discussed, as Article 36 proponents, with the Finance Committee, we believe there will be no significant cost to the Town. We already have an ACO to enforce the leash law, and we understand that he provides a flyer with the current leash law to the public. This flyer could be modified and could also be given to dog owners when they register for licenses. Also, details, including exclusions established by the Parks and Recreation Commission, could be available on the Town Website. Community groups such as A-DOG and Friends of parks groups can help by keeping their members informed. These groups might also choose to work with the Town to donate signage or other items to personalize their neighborhood parks. It is worth noting, too, that in response to an Article submitted to TM last year by an opponent of off-leash recreation, the Town raised the dog license fee by up to 50%, moving it from the median to the highest range in the Commonwealth (based on numbers available in spring, 2009), and imposed a costly late-fee. That Article’s proponent had suggested that such fees be used for “enforcement”. While specifying such use was ruled illegal, it is nonetheless clear that dog owners are being charged substantially more this year than last year, providing some extra revenue with no increase in privileges.

Why “a maximum of three dogs”? This was added for consistency with our town bylaws that allow up to three dogs per household, and with similar limits in other off-leash programs.
*****************************
Talk to us at TM: Mary McCartney (Pct 1), Sue Doctrow and Jennifer Goebel (Pct 21), Ann Smith (Pct 17), BethAnn Friedman (Pct 15), and Andrew Fisher (Pct 6)

Website: www.arlingtondogowners.org. Board of Directors: Susan Doctrow, Andrew Fisher, MaryAnna Foskett, Brenda Kokubo, Mary Mangan, Carrie Moore, Gian Schauer, Gerald Silberman, Ann Smith, Roslyn Smith, Judy Weinberg
*********************

Read Letters to the Arlington Advocate here.

The  signers of Article 36 are proposing the following wording:.

VOTED:

To amend Section 8 (“Animal Control”) of Article 1 (“Use of Areas under Control of Park Department”) of Title IV (“Public Areas”) and/or Article 2 (“Canine Control”) of Title VIII (“Public Health and Safety”) 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.

The Board of Selectmen voted 4 – 1 against recommending any action on this Article. This means they will direct Town Meeting not to vote for any changes to the leash laws. However, Substitute Motions can be presented, and Town Meeting can vote in opposition to the Selectmen’s recommendation.  (As it did, for example, in last years’ Article to allow Arlington residents to keep hens, which the Selectmen opposed.)

Subsequently, at an April 13 hearing, the Arlington Parks and Recreation Commission voted unanimously (with 4 out of 5 Commissioners present) to support the Article that A-DOG representatives will present to Town Meeting, to allow dogs off leash, under effective owner control in the mornings. It will be a Substitute Motion since the Board of Selectmen did not vote to support it (see below for more information). Parks and Recreation Commissioners commented that it was a sensible approach, and gave them the flexibility to further modify park use by dog owners, as needed.

At Town Meeting, which begins on April 26, the proposed vote will be introduced as a Substitute Motion. We hope that the support of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the efforts of our members to contact their elected Town Meeting Members, will help to overcome the disadvantage of the Selectmen’s lack of support.

A recording of the Board of Selectmen Hearing (in three Parts, each 7 to 8 min) can be found at the A-DOG YouTube site , with a written summary below:

Guide to Videos from Board of Selectmen hearing on Article 36

Please note: These videos are unedited, except for being divided into three parts to meet YouTube maximum video requirements. Total time for the three is approximately 22 min.

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:
• 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).
• 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 Town Manager, with oversight from 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!

HELP PETS IN NEED THIS HOLIDAY SEASON
Hello! We are a local family collecting the following items to donate to local animal shelters that are in desperate need of the following:
•    Bath Towels
•    Laundry detergent
•    Bleach
•    Plush toys
•    Rubber squeaky toys
•    Tennis balls
•    Dental Chews
•    Knotted rope toys
•    Rawhides/knuckle bones
•    Training treats
•    Phone books for small animals to shred
•    Cat litter
•    Copy paper
•    Paper towels
•    Toilet Paper
•    Dog beds
•    Distilled Water
•    3-tab manila file folders
•    Dishwashing liquid
•    Large trash bags
•    Hand sanitizer
•    Bowls
•    Cat and dog food
•    Rubbing alcohol
•    Scissors
•    Tape dispenser refills
•    Air fresheners
•    3×5 index cards
•    Radios
•    Pens
•    Old Crates
•    Collars
•    Leashes
If you have any of the above, please contact us at: petdonations@yahoo.com
We will pick up any of the above items that you can part with and will donate them to local shelters (MSPCA, Buddy Dog, ARL, Alliance for Animals)  in mid December.  THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR SUPPORT!
Every little bit will help!

On Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 7 p.m. at the Belmont Studio Cinema, 376 Trapelo Road, Belmont, the Friends of Betty and Dexter will show the award-winning documentary, Prison Pups, to help raise funds so that Elizabeth Smith MacKenzie of Watertown may obtain a new hearing assistance dog.

MacKenzie, a special needs teacher with the Cambridge public schools, will get her hearing assistance dog from NEADS (the National Education for Assistance Dog Services) Dogs for Deaf and Disabled Americans, the same organization that matched her with Dexter, her current hearing assistance dog. Dexter, who is ill, is over 12 years old and will retire soon.

MacKenzie explained that, “My dog works primarily for me, but also accompanies me to the classroom and sits for reading time, helps with counting and often comforts an upset child as needed. He has been an invaluable asset to the school room.”

NEADS, a Massachusetts non-profit, in 1976, pioneered the training of dogs to help people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, in the same manner as guide dogs assist the blind and people with limited vision. NEADS has now expanded its services to provide training for people with other disabilities also.

In 1998, NEADS began the Prison PUP Partnership in which inmates foster and train service dog puppies for the first year of the dogs’ training. The film, Prison Pups, tells the story of four inmates as they raise and train service dogs for the handicapped and hearing impaired at Concord Farm, Massachusetts, a minimum-security facility.

“Dexter, and before him, Chico,” MacKenzie said, “have been my ears for 25 years. They allow me to function independently at home, in the community and at work. They tell me the smoke alarm, teakettle, door knock, phone, etc. They do the same sounds at work, plus a different fire alarm. On the street they tell me if sirens are coming, and alert me to other environmental sounds that are above or below the sounds that my hearing aides can compensate for.”

She added: “My service dog allows independence in a way that gives me, a disabled person, control over my safety. Service dogs are more focused and reliable than any human companion. They are always available and willing to accompany me anywhere at any time.”

A donation of $25.00 for adults and $5.00 for students is requested for the screening. More information about NEADS may be viewed at http://www.neads. org/index. php.

Contributions for Betty may be made directly by going to:
http://www.neads. org/about_ us/client_ view.php? id=189