Arlington Dog Owners Group, or A-DOG, is a nonprofit community organization celebrating the canine-human bond!  Since 2008, A-DOG has represented the rights and interests of responsible dog owners in Arlington, MA.

“I love A-DOG! Always will!” – Carrie M., Arlington

Read what else  our members have to say about A-DOG!

See some of our dogs!

Join the A-DOG group on Facebook, just for fun and to stick together!

Copyright 2008 – 2012, Arlington Dog Owners Group, all rights reserved

**************************************

NEWS

• Membership Drive:  Our 2012/2013 membership drive is underway — join or renew today!
• Patriot’s Day parade was on April 15.  A-DOG members marched with their dogs — photos will be up soon!  Last year was fun, too!
• Thorndike Dog Park will open in May, 2012.  Read more here, including how to join Friends of Thorndike Dog Park group!
• Evening Off-Leash hours? Town Meeting 2012 Article (24) to allow off-leash evening hours is supported by the Park and Recreation Commission, but not by the Board of Selectmen.  Read about the status here.
• Some past notices

********************************************

ARLINGTON DOG RECREATION HIGHLIGHTS

•  Morning off-leash recreation is now allowed at several Arlington parks.  An A-DOG sponsored Town Meeting Article (Art. 36, 2010) made this bylaw change possible!  (see Animal Control bylaws and search “Article 36″ for more history.)
• Thorndike OLRA, Arlington’s first dedicated fenced dog park is scheduled to open soon (see NEWS).
• Leash law:  otherwise, dogs not on their owners’ property must be walked on a 6-foot leash.  (see Animal Control bylaws)

***************************************************************************

THE A-DOG WEBSITE BELONGS TO ALL OF US — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE YOUR COMMENTS TO OUR CONTENT!

Welcome to our website! Please read our articles and enter comments wherever you’d like (there is a comment section after each article).

Please do not post your comments anonymously but that, instead, you sign your name, to encourage the most constructive dialog possible in our community. The comments are moderated and we reserve the right to not publish comments for certain reasons, such as no email provided. (This email address is visible to the moderators but not to the public viewing the site.) If a comment seems particularly rude and disrespectful, we reserve the right not to publish it and will try to inform the author by email with a chance to revise it. We will, however, do our best to allow, and encourage, comments representing all points of view on issues of relevance to our articles.

We welcome submissions of articles on relevant topics. If you’d like to write an article for this website, please contact us at the email given below with your proposal. Unlike comments, however, we will not publish articles written under a “nom de plume”unless there is a good reason for the anonymity

Feel free to contact us at <arlingtondogowners@gmail.com> with questions, feedback, article proposals, or any other inquiry.

Article 24 Background

The proponents of Article 24, represented by its sponsor, one of us (M.H.), put forth a warrant article for the 2012 Town Meeting with the same wording as the 2010 Article 36, which allowed morning off-leash recreation hours. The proposed language of Article 24 would allow evening off-leash recreation on:  “lands under control of the Park and Recreation Commission except: A. those lands directly contiguous to school properties; B. within 15 feet of playground equipment; C. by specific exclusion of the Park and Recreation Commission.”

This language was recommended by PRC, and allows the PRC complete flexibility in establishing, modifying, or discontinuing off-leash hours to respond to evolving community needs. Proponents of Article 24 met with the PRC Chair before putting forth the article for approval and language and scheduled discussion with the full PRC shortly thereafter. Proponents also stated that they would not bring forth the Article if PRC didn’t feel the timing was appropriate or had any other reservations about implementing evening off-leash hours.

Procedural History

Warrant Article 24 was submitted to Town Warrant with the signatures of 10 registered Arlington residents, as required.

Feb 27, 2012: First BoS hearing on Article 24. PRC provided a short paragraph to BoS on the Article. The BoS decided to postpone consideration of this Article to allow the PRC more time to provide more detailed information. On Feb 27, members of the public, who had waited until after 9 pm, were not allowed to speak after the sponsoring proponent. It was our impression that we would be able to participate at the next hearing.

Mar 26, 2012: Second BoS hearing on Article 24: PRC provided a 2-page response to Article 24, indicating support for the Article. Again, the Article came up late on the Agenda, and the supporters of the Article waited past 9pm for an opportunity to talk. Again, the sponsoring proponent was allowed to speak, but the BoS refused to allow any other members of the public to speak saying “This isn’t a hearing” and “We already know what you’re going to say.”  The BoS unanimously voted “No Action” on Article 24.  See the video for the full discussion.
(A link to obtain the PRC’s 2-page memo and a link to a video of the hearing appear at the end of this article.)

In their memo to the BoS, the PRC also recognized the community interest in off-leash hours, and said the article, if passed, would be “very workable.” The memo anticipated a more limited number of parks, as compared to the morning hours, and perhaps seasonal restrictions.  But, as is appropriate, the PRC memo explained that specific details (e.g. which parks, which times of year) would not be determined until there was a transparent public input process, involving dog owners and other concerned users of each potential park. This was exactly the kind of process used to establish the morning off-leash hours, after the Article 36 substitute motion (with wording analogous to that shown above) passed at TM in 2010. Allowing discretion on off-leash recreation by a Park and Recreation Commission, or its equivalent, is in keeping with its typical role. For example, Brookline’s Green Dog Plan is allowed by a general bylaw that leaves the park-specific details, including the hours, to its Park and Recreation Commission.

Even though Article 36 passed in 2010, and had been supported by the PRC, the BoS had voted “no action” (4 to 1).  The passage of the Article at TM was very close, and we believe this was in part because of the lack of BoS support.

At the March 26 Hearing all five Selectmen were present, and each presented his or her reasons for voting  “no action.” Next to each objection are the arguments of Article 24 proponents, who would have raised these in response had we been given a chance to speak.

-        Too soon (Dunn, Rowe and LaCourt): Matter of personal opinion—has been 2 years since Article 36 passed, this one goes either way

-        Too much pressure on PRC (Rowe): PRC has indicated support, and did not tell Article 24 proponents that this was either too soon or too much pressure when asked.

-        Positive action not supported by PRC (Greeley): We disagree—memo indicates community need for evening hours, calls plan “workable”, and suggests acceptable wording for a motion

-        Plan not detailed enough (Mahon, Rowe): Plan is detailed exactly as Article 36, which PRC has implemented and considers a successful program. BoS seem not to trust their PRC with the responsibility to implement this program, as has been done in Arlington and other towns. In addition, having a more detailed plan in the bylaws would render evening hours less flexible, reduce discretion of PRC, and would require act of Town Meeting to change.

In addition, at the Feb 27 Hearing, this argument was also raised:

-        Warrant Article should be submitted by PRC, not by 10 Registered Voters: This argument is puzzling, at best. Arlington’s bylaws allow warrant articles to be submitted by the public, and indeed, every year many articles appear before TM that are submitted by 10 Registered Voters, on everything from leaf blowers to chickens.

While their reasons for voting “no action” were stated, at least one Selectman supported the idea of evening off-leash hours, and others were supportive of bringing the issue before Town Meeting.

The Selectmen have a practice of holding public hearings on Warrant Articles, but have not been consistent in allowing the public to speak, as was evident at the hearings that evening. We would have liked the opportunity to be heard on this issue. We note that, in addition, dozens of our members wrote letters in support of Article 24 to the BoS, but that there was no “correspondence received” for this Article as there often is for others.

Please watch the video of the final Article 24 BoS hearing and judge for yourself.
Also, see the PRC’s 2-page memo here

by A-DOG Members:

S. Doctrow (TMM, Pct 21), J. Goebel  (TMM (2008-2010), Pct 21), A. Goldstein (TMM, Pct 14), M. Henning (TMM, Pct 19), and R. Varghese

Summary:

Arlington’s Animal Control Bylaws now allow morning off leash recreation (generally, 6 to 9 am, with some exceptions) in several Arlington parks.  Specific details on the program may be found at the website of the Recreation Department at this link, where a brochure listing specific parks, off-leash hours and other details may be downloaded.

The bylaw change enabling morning off-leash recreation was sponsored at Town Meeting by A-DOG, with several Town Meeting members who are also A-DOG members advocating successfully for Town Meeting approval.  The new wording appears in red in the bylaws (below).

Arlington’s Animal Control bylaws also allow for fenced “dog recreation areas”, to be established by the Park and Recreation Commission.  This bylaw change (shown in blue) was voted in by Town Meeting (2003/2004) through the efforts of an earlier group of Arlington dog owners, the Friends of Canine Companions of Arlington (FOCCA).  Some of the original FOCCA members joined with other residents to found A-DOG in 2008.

When not in a designated off-leash recreational area at designated times, Arlington bylaws require that dogs be restrained on a leash no greater than 6 ft in length.

Fines for violating the “Leash Laws” in Arlington are among the highest, if not the highest, in Massachusetts, as shown below in green.  This was because of an amendment voted in by Town Meeting, 2011.  An A-DOG member, Wes Beal has sponsored a petition to return these fines to levels more consistent with those in other communities (generally, no greater than $50).

________________________________

Bylaws:

Title VIII – Public Health and Safety 

ARTICLE 2: CANINE CONTROL

Section 1. Dogs

No person shall own or keep any dog which by biting, barking, howling, or in any other manner disturbs the peace and quiet of any neighborhood, or endangers the safety of any person.

Section 2. Leashing of Dogs

Leash Required

No person owning or keeping a dog in the Town of Arlington shall permit such dog to be at large in the Town of Arlington elsewhere than on the premises of the owner or keeper, except if it be on the premises of another person with the knowledge and permission of such other person. Such owner or keeper of a dog in the Town of Arlington, which is not on the premises of the owner or upon the premises of another person with the knowledge and permission of such person shall restrain such dog by a chain or leash not exceeding six feet in length. In any prosecution hereunder, the presence of such dog at large upon premises other than the premises of the owner or keeper of such dog shall be prima facie evidence that such knowledge and permission was not had.

ART. 10, ATM 4/28/03

This provision shall not apply, however, in any area designated by the Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners as a “Dog Park,” “Dog Run” or “Dog Exercise Area.” In areas so designated, dogs are not required to be restrained by a leash provided the owner or keeper of such dog is present and attentive to the dog.

B. Enforcement

Any dog found to be at large in violation of this By-Law shall be caught and confined by the dog officer who shall notify forthwith the licensed owner or keeper of said dog giving the owner or keeper a period of ten days within which to recover the dog. Return of the dog to the licensed owner or keeper shall be dependent on admission of ownership or the keeping of the dog and the assumption of responsibility by the licensed  owner or keeper. The dog officer shall enter and prosecute a complaint against the owner or keeper of any dog taken into his custody under this section, as provided for in this By-Law. A dog officer having custody of a dog confined under this By-Law shall be allowed the sum of two dollars per day for each day of confinement for the care of such dog, payable by the owner or keeper thereof.

C.     Fines

(ART. 40, ATM – 05/08/91 (ART. 17, ATM – 04/26/06)(ART. 19, ATM – 04/27/11)

Violations of Sections 2 of this Article shall be punishable as follows:

First offense                                                   By a fine of      $75.00

Second offense                                          By a fine of    $100.00

Third offense                                                   By a fine of    $150.00

Fourth and each subsequent offense      By a fine of    $200.00

The Park and Recreation Commission shall provide for a hearing process to consider community input regarding the creation, placement and use of dog parks, dog runs or dog exercise areas.  The Commission shall adopt rules and regulations concerning these hearings subject to the approval of the Town Manager.

D.      Notwithstanding the foregoing, from park opening time until 9 am, a maximum of two dogs per handler may be off-leash, under effective owner control, in all lands under control of the Parks and Recreation Commission except (ART 36, ATM 2010):

1.      those lands directly contiguous to school properties;

2.      within 15 feet of playground equipment;

3.      by specific exclusion of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Title IV – Public Areas

ARTICLE 1: USE OF AREAS UNDER CONTROL OF PARK DEPARTMENT

Section 8. Animal Control

Art. 9, ATM, 4/28/03 and ART 36, ATM 2010

No person shall cause or permit any animal owned by him or in his custody or under his control, to roam or be at large, in, on or through any park or playground, except in any area designated by the Board of Park and Recreation Commissioners as a “Dog Park”, “Dog Run” or “Dog Exercise Area”, or, except a dog when restrained by a leash not exceeding six (6) feet in length. No animals are allowed on any beach under the care and control of the Park Department. Notwithstanding the foregoing, from park opening time until 9 am, a maximum of two dogs per handler may be off-leash, under effective owner control, in all lands under control of the Parks and Recreation Commission except:

A.      those lands directly contiguous to school properties;

B.      within 15 feet of playground equipment;

C.      by specific exclusion of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Bylaws reprinted from the Town of Arlington website, here.

The photos above shows the site of Arlington’s new fenced dog park, taken in mid-April. Based on construction progress, it is expected to open in May, 2012. See the big tree with the benches around it for dog owners to sit in its natural shade! (thanks to Arlington resident Larry Krupp for sending us these photos)

***************************

Fenced dog parks in Arlington have been allowed by law since 2003, but have not yet been established.  At A-DOG’s request, the Town, through its Recreation Department and Park and Recreation Commission, formed a Dog Park Task Force, that began  meeting in 2009, with at least three fenced dog parks on it’s “wish list”.  Through a generous grant to Arlington from the Stanton Foundation, our first fenced dog park, at Thorndike Field in East Arlington, is becoming a reality!

Below, we publish an article by Bette Yip, whose Arlington based business, Picture Perfect Pets, is a “Friend of A-DOG”. Bette describes the new Thorndike fenced dog park coming soon to Arlington, and how we can all work together to make it a success!  (This was originally published as her “Weekly Yip” column in the Arlington Patch).

As Bette points out, A-DOG is currently organizing a Friends of Thorndike Dog Park group of users and supporters. Contact A-DOG to learn more.

Facebook users: Join our Friends of Thorndike Dog Park page!

*************

Arlington’s First Fenced Dog Park

Here are some ways you can help to make it a success for our town.

by Bette Yip

For as long as I’ve been an Arlington business owner, there has been talk about the possibility of a fenced dog park one day being built in our town. In fact, Town Meeting voted to allow fenced dog parks in 2003, I was reminded when I recently sat down to discuss our current dog park situation with Sue Doctrow of the Arlington Dog Owners Group (A-DOG) who is also a member of Arlington’s Dog Park Task Force. Still, at times, the notion of a fenced dog park in Arlington has felt more like a fantasy than a possibility. Now, almost a decade after Town Meeting voted to allow fenced dog parks in Arlington, that’s all about to change. Thorndike Dog Park is currently under construction, and is expected to open sometime this spring.

The road leading to this point has been long. Doctrow explained that Arlington established The Dog Park Task Force in 2010 to identify potential sites, designs & costs for fenced dog parks in town. Last year, a generous donation from the Stanton Foundation made construction of our first dog park a reality. Considering what a struggle it’s been to get this fenced dog park, it’s all the more critical that we all do our part to ensure its success.

Here are some ways dog owners can help:

• Know your dog, and be realistic about whether a fenced-dog park is the right socialization and exercise option for your particular dog. Some dogs love to play with other dogs in groups. Others prefer long walks with their humans in places where they may encounter and briefly socialize with a variety of other dogs, but probably wouldn’t linger long to frolic as a pack. Still others prefer the company of humans and do better when kept away from areas where unleashed dogs might approach them. If your dog might not play well with others in a fenced dog-park, a different type of recreation might be a better and safer fit.
• Familiarize yourself with and obey the posted rules. The town and the Dog Park Task Force are in the process of finalizing the rules which will be clearly posted once the park opens.
• Learn to read canine body language. When a dog asks another dog for space but doesn’t get it, trouble could erupt. Dogs use intricate and subtle body language to communicate with one another. If you know what you’re looking for, you can read the conversation among dogs, and better anticipate when you should intervene in their interactions to prevent scuffles. There are a number of great resources available on this subject. Two I like are a DVD set from Sarah Kalnajs called The Language of Dogs and a book by Robin K. Bennett & Susan Briggs called Off-Leash Dog Play : a Complete Guide to Safety and Fun. As I looked up links to these resources, I came across another promising book with good reviews titled Visiting the Dog Park : Having Fun, Staying Safe by Cheryl Smith.
• Brush up on your dog’s training. “Come when called” is perhaps the most critical skill to work on. I also find these additional cues very useful: Red Light/Green Light (meaning stop and focus on me/now you’re free to frolic), Leave It, Sit/Freeze and Down/Freeze (Freeze is my version of Stay).
• Contact A-DOG about joining Friends of Thorndike Dog Park. This is a group for users and other supporters of the dog park. It will work with the town to set fundraising goals, organize volunteer efforts, etc. to ensure the long-term success of the park.

It’s so exciting to think that our first dog park will probably be open within a matter of months! This will be a big boost to quality of life for many Arlington dogs and their owners. I have high hopes that park visitors will rise to the responsibility this amazing new privilege brings.

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 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 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.

Highlights of the parade included:

• Marching behind the awesome Jumbalaya band..that was really fun!

• The friendly crowds of enthusiastic spectators, including many groups of children who frequently cried “doggies! doggies!” and were even more delighted to have the doggies come over to greet them personally!

• Passing Town Hall, where the announcer read a very nice statement about the mission of our organization, and remarked on all the well-behaved dogs in the parade.

• Seeing so many of our friends and neighbors among the spectators!

• The feeling of community, fun, and celebration that only a parade can bring!

Thank-you to all members who participated, as well as to the organizers, including:

• Joan and Dana, who built a beautiful A-DOG Cart!  This cart was pulled by Joan and Emily (escorting Bella and Clio), since no dog volunteered for the effort.  ;-) Joan, Dana and their 3-generation family escorted their three extended-family dogs, including Dana and Joan’s Bella and Wizard.

• Ann and Roslyn, who pulled the entire event together in so many ways, as they always do, including creating the A-DOG banner, carried by Mary and Zarina in the parade.  Roslyn escorted their dog Pepe.

• Susan R., who stitched lovely blue bandannas for the marching doggies and escorted her dog Juneau

Please add your own comments, acknowledgments and parade memories under “comments” below, and contact us to have your photos added.

See you next year!

Here, with their permission, is what they are saying:

“Among other things, we are looking for a community that understands the bond between members of a human/canine family……” 

Brett G. and Deborah F., Arlington

 ”Dogs do so much for us, it’s nice if we can give them good places to play off leash with their friends!”

Pamela S., Medford

“We just adopted a rescue dog, and would love to give him a chance to run around outside in a fenced in area, off leash.”

Angela and David S., Arlington

“Five or more days a week my friends and our dogs enjoy an off-leash romp at Turkey Hill.  Thank you for making this possible and legal.”

Ruth S., Arlington

“The off-leash hours that A-DOG helped establish has created a nice community of neighbors at our local park, in addition to making our dog more sociable and better behaved.  We’ve changed our morning routine to be a part of this community.”

Amy G. and Doug G., Arlington

“I really appreciate the value of dogs in our lives and how to establish “rights” and environments to meet their needs to just be DOGS!”

Ellen C., Arlington

“We love Arlington and love our dog.  We want to support ways to enjoy both!”

Heather and David A., Arlington 

“The off leash hours are life-changing. I so appreciate the advocacy for dogs and their people. The leadership is sophisticated and strategic–needed when issues are charged.”

– Ellen D., Arlington

“You all do such a great job supporting dogs and their families in arlington!!”

– Michele S., Arlington

“for all of the hard work and persistence in getting off leash hours passed and keeping us informed about dog related town-wide concerns”

– Louisa B., Arlington

“I am excited to learn more about the possibility of a dog park in Arlington!”

– Margaret M., Arlington

“We support A-DOG because we enjoy being able to enjoy the parks with our dog Estella during off leash hours and think it’s important that this continue to be allowed.”

– Dustin and Ellen T., Arlington

“We need to speak up for the voiceless and that includes all animals.”

– Heather B., Arlington

“Every dog needs a support system. I think the work you do is so important to our dogs and our own mental and physical health. Thanks so much!”

— Pam H., Arlington

“I thought A-DOG did and continues to do a great job of working on behalf of all of the dogs and dog owners in Arlington.  I am particularly appreciative of all of the work you did and continue to do to help obtain and maintain off leash hours for dogs in this town.”

— Louisa B., Arlington

“What you’ve done and are doing is impressive and important – we and our dogs want to be a more active part of it!”

– Roma H., Arlington

“I love A-DOG! Always will!”

– Carrie M., Arlington

“Pets are important members of our community. Responsible pet ownership is essential.”

– Janet D., Arlington

“LOVE the off-leash hours at Turkey Hill and use them daily. Time to support the great group that made this happen and be in the loop.”

– Ruth S., Arlington

“I want to keep Arlington dog friendly!”

- – Gian S., Arlington, MA

“I love animals, and two of my best friends are Becker and Candace, my friend Sue’s wonderful companions.”

- – Alma G., Arlington, MA

“While I understand where opponents of off-leash dogs are coming from, many of them are against every proposed solution, so it’s important that responsible dog owners can present a united front.  I can’t wait for the fenced dog park, which I don’t think would be happening if A-DOG didn’t exist!  I’d also love evening or weekend off-leash hours (since the morning hours don’t work for me). I strongly prefer off-leash locations places with some sort of visual barrier between the dog area and other uses, even if it’s not a real fence — just something to help my dog know where the limit is).”

- – Riley H., Arlington

“As a new resident, I have found dog owners to be the most welcoming and inviting members of the Arlington community!”

- – Meghan H., Arlington

“I support A-Dog because I believe that Arlington residents who own dogs should be responsible and educated about town bylaws and plans for dog parks, etc. A-Dog does a great job of getting messages out to Arlington’s dog-owning community.”

- – Jennifer G., Arlington

“I feel strongly about exercising my rights as a responsible dog owner. I am also concerned with the well-being of my dog who needs active off-leash play time to be healthy.”

– Gene L., Arlington

“Because dogs have feelings and needs too.”

– Keith P., Arlington

“I support A-DOG because canine citizens are an important part of our community.  Dogs enrich our lives, and A-DOG makes it easier to be a dog owner in Arlington.”

– Susan R., Arlington

“We are very interested in having areas for our dog to run and play right here in our town! We are responsible dog owners and are happy to join a group of like-minded individuals!”

– Maureen L., Arlington

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.