PIPM Working Groups: Dog Owner Team
Mission:
Make parks welcome to dog owners with lots of alternative ideas
posted by Joe at 8:29 AM
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
Make parks welcome to dog owners with lots of alternative ideas
Contributors
Previous Posts
- PIPM Working Groups: Marketing Team
- PIPM Working Groups: Political Strategy Team
- PIPM Working Groups: Youth Team
- PIPM Working Groups: Technology Team
- First State Parks Caucus
- Are Mass State Parks too well funded?
- Borderland appears on dubious Top 10 list
- Which candidate would make a difference?
- Maintain state parks:How can Romney keep his promise?
- In the Spotlight...
13 Comments:
This is a group whose time has come, since the effort recently begun by Midlesex Fells Dog Owers Group has opened a dialogue with the DCR on the need for an off leash area within the Fells for the hundreds of dog owners who use the Fells as a recreational and social resource for themselves and their dogs.
8:45 AM
The second PNP Working Group meeting for “Making Parks More Welcome to Dog Owners and Their Dogs” convened on Tuesday, March 6, 2007 at 100 Cambridge Street, 2nd Floor, Conference Room “D”.
Co-chairs:
Margie Lynch, Director of Partnerships, DCR
Lisa McFarren, Somerville Dog Owners Group
Attendees:
Christina A. Doctoroff, External Affairs and Partnerships, DCR
Ann Dorfman, NewtonDogs
Joel A. Feingold, Callahan Canine Owners Association
J. Alain Ferry, BostonDOG
Brian McLaughlin, Executive Secretary, Boston Parks & Recreation
Samantha Overton Bussell, Deputy Dir, Division of Urban Parks & Recreation, DCR
Betsy Shure Gross, Executive Dir, Office of Public Private Partnerships, EOEEA
Ethel Woodard, Special Assistant, OPPP, EOEEA
Discussion:
• Brian McLaughlin spoke on the success of the Peter’s Park – took two years to create a 19-20 pages document – primary criteria – stay with the letter of the law as the criteria is in the ordinance – a copy of the ordinance and application can be viewed - Chapter 13 2004 – CBC Chapter 9 Section 11-10.
• Question from Joel Feingold – where will the cost be borne? – The Friends Group for Peter’s Park will maintain that they have raised funding already and are planning additional fundraisers.
• Question from Lisa McFarren – do the funds from the dog licenses go into the General Fund and if so, does the City decide or Animal Control of that specific area? In Boston, it goes into the General Fund but the cost varies based on the municipality. Lisa recommended that the funds go for dog recreations.
• Concern from Joel Feingold – concern that the message that other groups will have a challenge to raise the funds for maintenance. Sam Overton recommended a cap be put on the amount. Lisa McFarren stated the new park will be overcrowded unless the Boston area provides more places for dog owners to exercise and socialize their dogs; these spaces will foster better dog owners such as the example of Pittsburgh, which has a dozen dog parks throughout the city. Betsy Shure Gross stated the Town of Brookline un-leash program works well but it was not easy, took a lot of meetings, takes cooperation from the public agency and community. Sam Overton stated that she spoke with Erin Chute Gallantine, Director of Parks and Open Space Division, Town of Brookline and she is happy to come and speak with this group. She further stated that the Town of Brookline is still new.
• Question from Betsy Shure Gross – need a clarification or schedule for DCR Rules and Regulations moving forward. So that Dog group has opportunity for input on dog use/management policy issues. Sam Overton responded that we hear the concern and are trying to make the regulations flexible, want to keep them simple, perhaps a sub regulations (pilot program) hope to put all regulations out in the spring. BSG responded that we want to maintain integrity and respect and not have them decided while this group is meeting and discussing, is there a crosswalk – timeline? Sam Overton responded that the issue is that the old regulations must stand until new regulations are in place. She also stated that she is happy to be the conduit to pass the information on but we are not ready to put it all out there for review – there is no broad policy available. Sam Overton stated she would come to the next meeting with the status of the regulations as it stands now. BSG stated that her point is to ensure that we are all on the same track.
• Joel Feingold distributed a handout (EcoMedia a new environment for media Environmental Solutions through Public-Private Partnerships April 2006). It was presented to Gary Briere, Chief, Bureau of Recreation, DCR, and Susan Hamilton, NE Regional Director, State Parks and Recreation, DCR regarding managing Callahan in terms of applying the methodology. The concern is about Boston Ordinances as many organizations are not able to handle financial obligations.
The group developed a matrix chart to discuss appropriate criteria for the discussion/development of appropriate criteria for providing various levels of dog use in parks.
Action Items:
1. Sam Overton to come to the next meeting with current status of DCR Dog Regulations.
2. Bring in Dog Walkers for Presentation at a meeting in the future.
3. The next meeting will continue to discuss/develop matrix chart on appropriate criteria for providing various levels of dog use in parks.
6:49 PM
Making Parks Welcome to Dog Owners and Their Dogs Meeting Minutes for Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Co-chairs:
Margie Lynch, Director of Partnerships, DCR
Lisa McFarren, Somerville Dog Owners Group
Attendees:
Michael Arnott, Friends of the Middlesex Fells
Christina A. Doctoroff, External Affairs and Partnerships, DCR
Ann Dorfman, NewtonDogs
Kate Grady, Callahan Canine Owners Association
J. Alain Ferry, BostonDOG
Brian McLaughlin, Executive Secretary, Boston Parks & Recreation
Samantha Overton Bussell, Deputy Dir, Division of Urban Parks & Recreation, DCR
Betsy Shure Gross, Executive Dir, Office of Public Private Partnerships, EOEEA
Ethel Woodard, Special Assistant, OPPP, EOEEA
• Lisa McFarren (Somerville Dog Owners Group) asked for volunteers for the Poster Session for the 6/9/07 conference – she stated that the objective of the poster is to showcase this group, which came out of the 1st Partners in Parks Conference of October 2006, to report on its work to date and try to establish an interaction with other dog owners.
• Samantha Overton Deputy Dir, Division of Urban Parks & Recreation, DCR provided an update from her meeting with Tom LaRosa, Chief Counsel DCR and Gary Briere, Chief of Recreation, DCR on the Policy and Regulations of the current Dog policy. The timing of the Regulations depends on the new commissioner, so it is unclear at this time when they will be going out, she spoke of how the process came about and the manner in which they are structured, indicated that there would be a public process and the draft is the first step. Copies of the current Regulations can be requested and will be available at the next meeting.
• Margie Lynch, Director of Partnerships DCR stated that applications for Park Serve Day on May 12, 2007 are available through her.
• On the Factor’s Chart discussion, it was recommended and agreed that discussion on Management and Maintenance for each of the factors will require a more in depth discussion and will be the last items up.
For a copy of the matrix, please contact Lisa McFarren at lisa.mcfarren@comcast.net.
1. Ethel Woodard, Special Assistant EOEEA OPPP, will reformat Chart based on the recommended suggestions in today’s meeting.
2. The Team is to review the chart, prioritize the items for a 60-minute discussion at the next meeting. It is imperative that Gary Briere be in attendance at this discussion. (Gary has confirmed he will be the April 25 meeting.)
3. Lisa McFarren to identify approximately eight Dog Walkers organizations to invite to a future meeting to discuss the pros and cons of their organizations and any outstanding issues.
4. Dick Stewart should be at May 15, 2007, meeting. (Margie has will invite him.)
5. Following items for future Agenda discussions:
• Enforcement.
• Management.
• Models of Dog Space Programs (Brookline, Salem and paper examples).
• Criteria based on Gary Briere’s experience with the Off Highway vehicle session.
6. Lisa McFarren to do a poster session for review.
7. Brian McLaughlin will confirm the availability of City Hall, BRA room on the 10th Floor for May 15 meeting.
Next meeting date: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 – 3:00 pm to 5:00 pm. Location TBA.
10:13 AM
I stumbled across this site after reading a post on the FellsDOG blog. I'm very excited about the conference in June but I'm extremely frustrated to find that after more than six months of trying to talk to the DCR about recent changes re: enforcement of off-leash rules at Elm Bank, never once did they even mention the existence of this working group!!! Instead, we've encountered a wall of 'we make the rules' bureaucracy. Is the working group meeting in May? If so, could you post the next meeting time & place?
11:42 AM
Hi Cathy,
I apologize for not responding to your post sooner. I haven't checked the blog in a few weeks because I have been the only one to post messages in the past few months; I will be more attentive in the future.
The meetings for the working group are posted on the CRC calendar (you can link on it through the home page). The next meeting will be on Tuesday, June 12 from 3:00 - 5: 00 pm at 100 Cambridge St. in Boston. Because entry to the building requires going through security, I will need to know if you are coming ahead of time. Please email me directly at lisa.mcfarren@comcast.net if you are still interested.
I look forward to meeting you at the June 9 conference.
5:02 PM
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Making Parks Welcome to Dog Owners and Their Dogs
Co-chairs:
Margie Lynch, Director of Partnerships, DCR
Lisa McFarren, Somerville Dog Owners Group
Attendees:
Michael Arnott, Friends of the Middlesex Fells
Christina A. Doctoroff, External Affairs and Partnerships, DCR
Ann Dorfman, NewtonDogs
J. Alain Ferry, BostonDOG
Brian McLaughlin, Executive Secretary, Boston Parks & Recreation
Ethel Woodard, Special Assistant, OPPP, EOEEA
Gary Briere, Chief, Bureau of Recreation, DCR
Samantha Overton, Deputy Dir, Division of Urban Parks & Recreation, DCR
• Lisa McFarren (Co-chair Somerville Dog Owners Group) confirmed that she had four professional dog walker representatives for the meeting at City Hall on 5/15/07 – Christy Butts, J. Alain Ferry, Scott Parisi and Sarah Hill. Lisa recommended that we have ground rules so that they don’t feel they are being put on the spot and we want to give them respect in their role.
• J. Alain Ferry ask that we keep in mind the goal of Dog Walkers in that we want to get ideas for both Dog Walkers and the Parks that will benefit all.
• Scott Parisi said that in Portland ME at the Ocean Avenue Park, there is a fenced in space of approximately seven feet, if a permit is allowed in it one could pay a fee and pick up after their dogs, the funds could then be given to the user group for maintenance of the park. An on-site person is there, it is used when the majority of the people are not there and it is attractive and inviting.
• J. Alain Ferry said it is not user fees but licensing fee, it must go to the user group and not to the state and the user groups must work with land management officials.
• Mike Ryan said that the issue is enforcement through out the park, currently the problems are reported to the Rangers but they have no power.
• J. Alain Ferry said that off-lease area reduce many issues, it is safe to assume that when issues are reduced it is when a policy is in place.
• Ann Dorfman stated that she is sensitive to the subject of professional dog walkers and thinks it may be premature to invite them when there are many issues that have not been addressed. In Newton, although she has heard not necessarily first hand, negative comments from both the owners and non-owners. Some of the issues are access to public space for owners and non-owners, personal recreational activities should be viewed the same as other activities – what works for humans is not compatible to dog walkers. The concern is a non dog owner’s perception is not comparable to parents with children, she feels that both should have equal rights.
• Joel Feingold suggested the following topics for the 5/15/07 meeting
o Separate areas
o Permits vs. User Fees
o Certification needed by dogs
o Shots update –important – need to be put in place
o Private dog owners need insurance
o Design park area
o Limit of dogs per walker
o Off-lease – does the number differ
• Lisa suggested the following questions
o Overcrowding issues
o Wildlife issues
o Public safety
o Dog walkers – fire/interview
o Dog poop
o Dog fight – how is it handled
o Businesses networking
o Fenced in space
o Urine is an issue
• Mike Ryan added that natural resources is needed
• David Monahan suggested the following approach when addressing the Professional Dog Walkers
o Educate us – describe your services
o Ask for suggestions
o Identify situations for compromises
• Lisa asked for feedback on the Poster for the 6/9/07 conference. A suggestion was made to not use the matrix but use the language only.
Gary: Dog owner use in parks has interesting similarities to ATVs on what can be quite polarizing issues. There is the same kind of emotional debate. We need to get some framework and put emotional part aside. Matrix is a good start. How do we begin to objectively evaluate property? What are the factors that would dictate decisions in dealing with pets off-leash? Environmental factors (e.g., wetlands). Process involved taking things off the list where it used to be allowed. Work with OHVs has been a two-year process.
Rural parks are generally off-leash. Parks closer to urban properties have a lot of different types of dog recreation facilities.
In this process, we need to broaden scope of input. Not diverse enough group to make decisions. We need to determine stakeholders. Look at number of dog advocates, natural resource, public view, veterinarians, and professional dog walkers. Get scientific perspective.
Public safety a huge issue. How we perform as a neighbor. Show responsibility to manage things. Work together for process to have credibility and to move forward.
Group discussed how dog ownership has changed over the past 40 years. Dog owners as a whole are more invested in their pets. People now know how important it is to socialize their dogs as well as exercise them in order to have a better behaved animal. People’s parents used to let the dog out the front door in the neighborhood to let it run loose for the day. Dog owners now want safe places to go. They also want to socialize with other dog owners.
1. Invite Dick Stewart to attend the next meeting – Margie Lynch volunteered to do so
2. Asking the team to submit their questions and comments to Lisa by 5/4/07
3. Joel will email the topics to the entire team for their review. He also volunteered to do a graphics piece
4. J. Alain Ferry will provide a list of people that goes to the Fells
1:33 PM
Meeting: May 15, 2007, from 6:00 – 8:00 p.m. at Boston City Hall, Room 801
Co-Chairs:
Margie Lynch, Director of Partnerships, DCR
Lisa McFarren, Somerville Dog Owners Group
Professional Dog Walkers:
Sarah Hill, FitPit
Victoria Neeson, Happy Tails To You Pet Care
Scott Parisi, Best in Show
Attendees:
Christina Doctoroff, External Affairs and Partnerships, DCR
Ann Dorfman, NewtonDogs
Jim Fitzgerald, CCOA/CDOG
Brian McLaughlin, Executive Secretary, Boston Parks & Recreation
David Monahan, FellsDOG
Sgt. Charles Rudack, Animal Control Officer, Boston
Mike Ryan, Friends of the Middlesex Fells
Cathy Urnek, Animal Control Officer, Boston
Ethel Woodard, EOEEA/OPPP
Ground rules established for meeting: one person speaks at a time; time limit for each person; no sidebar conversation while someone else is speaking; respect what each person has to say; cell phones off.
The focus of this meeting was to get the perspective of professional dog walkers (PDWs) on the issues concerning their use of open space. At the beginning of the meeting, the PDWs were presented with 10 questions that were developed by team members. Most of the questions were addressed before the meeting time ended.
Questions for Professional Dog Walkers (PDWs) about use of Dog Recreational Space (DRS)
1. Briefly describe the type of dog walking service you run: leashed or playgroup? size of group? number of groups? additional staff?
2. Do PDWs “interview” for behavior before a dog can join a playgroup? How do PDWs manage dogs that run off from the group or fight with other dogs?
3. Is the PDW able watch his or her charges and collect dog feces at the same time? How can PDWs work with state and municipal land officials to keep parks clean?
4. Do you think dog recreational spaces are overcrowded?
5. Is it appropriate or necessary to limit the total number of dogs that a PDW may exercise at one time? If so, what should the limit be on the number of dogs that are on- or off-leash?
6. Do you think PDW employees should be required to have some form of training (e.g., in canine behavior/training)? Do you think uniform standards or guidelines should be established?
7. What can PDWs do individually or collectively to help encourage responsible dog walker/owner behavior?
8. What are the pros/cons of using a large fenced-in space (several acres) as opposed to sharing open space with other park users?
9. How would PDWs respond to being required to obtain a permit and wear identification (e.g., badge/medallion, etc.)? Would you recommend one permit per business? One permit per walker?
10. Should PDWs be required to pay a Use Fee? On what basis? [Questions to DCR/municipal land management officials: Is this legal under current DCR/municipal enabling legislation? Can a Friend’s group collect and manage this money to maintain DRSs?]
Discussion:
Sarah: It is important to respect other park users. Has been in business for 7 years. Runs a doggie playgroup. Dogs are interviewed; guidelines are strict. Has trained dogs over the years to be reliable off leash. Runs 2 playgroups a day.
Scott: Worked for a previous dog playgroup business. Has run own business for 4 years. Has up to 8 dogs per playgroup. If there are any problems with recall, the dog is on leash. Runs 3-4 groups a day. If a dog proves to be aggressive, it can’t be in the group. Several PDWs run unleashed walks. In a fenced-in park (can only take limited number of dogs per rules), always pick up; you get noticed if you do not pick up.
Sarah: Dogs that fight get kicked out of playgroup. Dogs can’t have that kind of behavior. Young dogs start on leash and work up from there. Plays hide-and-seek to train dog to pay attention where you are. Cannot talk on cell; PDW must pay attention to dogs at all times. Preventing dogs from running off: dogs run off mostly when they see other dogs; tend not to “hire” those kind of dogs (e.g, Huskies).
Scott: Takes dogs to remote places, away from other park users. Has other workers but every dog starts with him until he feels comfortable having his employees work with new dogs. New dogs all on leashes until they prove to be trusted off leash. Must be in control of dogs. Cannot gab on cell phones to or listen to music; only use cell phone for brief communications to each other. Must be on top of things. Smaller sized groups are appropriate. Playgroup is key to socialization: dogs become better dog citizens. Watch new dogs closely to look for signs of aggression. Requirements to be in group: rabies shot/history/background. Interview each new client. Rely on owner’s honesty. Keeps a diary of each dog. People who send their dog to playgroup love and work w/dog and respond to training dog.
Charles: Dogs are like kids. Training is a shared responsibility. Recommends reinforcement training. PDWs should support owner’s training methods.
Sarah: Study dog: see what their instincts are; prepare for their response. Dog has to be trained. An untrained dog is not conducive to socialization. PDW is aware of liability of working with untrained dogs. Dogs cannot stay if untrained. Owners must reinforce training, especially recall.
Victoria: Unruly dogs can’t be in playgroup. She has fenced-in space at her house for dogs who need work on recall. If owners cannot make their dogs stop growling or jumping, it is not worth having dog in group. Several people work for her; 6-7 dogs at a time. Her workers are intelligent, hands-on, young and healthy. Has 3-4 employees. A lot of communication with them. She uses Callahan/Wayland/Sherbourne/Newton/Needham. Each park has different set of rules. Very rare to have a dog fight. When dogs first are let loose on a walk, they do 95% of their “business”, which is bagged there. Dogs are like family members. Lot of communication with owners.
Chris: If pack of dogs approach a dog on a leash, how do you handle it?
Victoria: Get group off trail immediately and go to an open field. Get out of the way of people with dogs on leashes. In some cases, leash the group or throw balls for distraction.
Sarah: Use voice control. Build relationship with group. Dogs see your body language, expression.
Scott: Learn prevention. Find out times of day when park is more empty, when people are working. Stay in remote areas.
Question: Were you self-trained? Are you certified?
Scott: Laid off from other playgroup business. Trained by working for another group. Grew up with dogs. Web-based groups of PDWs who exchange ideas; very helpful. Not a lot of turnover with people who work for him. Wide-depth knowledge of professional organization.
Sarah: Started out working in Utah with animal behaviorist who was not certified. Belongs to PSI: Pet Sitters International.
Victoria: Belongs to PSI and AKBA (boarding organization). Looks at what other PDWs are doing for good ideas or to see if she can do better. Has many meetings with professional dog trainers.
Jim: Study trends around the country. Seattle area has more organized certification of PDWs. Some sort of licensing is given before PDWs are allowed to work, especially for off-leash dogs.
Victoria: Fortune magazine lists PDWs as the third fastest growing industry in the world.
David: Poop is a huge concern. With 8-10 dogs under your command, isn’t it difficult to pick up after the group?
Scott: Important to clean the park. In the woods, you do your best.
Victoria: Organized clean-up a year ago with DCR permission. Civilians (term for dog owners) came not to clean up, let dogs do their business and did not pick up after them. Parks are so valuable; you have to take care of them.
Scott: A lot of people do not like to pick up after their own pet.
Sarah: Large community of dog people. Exciting group. It is a social event. A lot of responsible dog owners but on weekends, there is a lot of problems with irresponsible dog owners. Poop is an issue. Need more public awareness in picking up; self-policing.
David: FellsDOG held Awareness event. Discussed signage; cleaning up after dog.
Mike: Difficult issue. Dogs are running through natural spaces for coyotes, foxes, fisher cats, etc. Wildlife is challenged and threatened. Dogs off leash are violating the laws.
Jim: In U.K., off leash is okay in woods. Policy is to “flick” poop into the woods because it is a biodegradable product.
David: Dog poop must be picked up.
Sarah: Absolutely. Seven years ago was only PDW at Callahan. Thought it was great. Now there is a heavy influx. If PDWs were not taking groups, it would still be overcrowded. A lot of dog owners, especially in the morning, contribute to overcrowding.
Scott: Fenced-in parks have limited number of dogs per person. Try to find places where you do not run into anyone. Inherent problem: limited number of places you can take dogs, which increases the overcrowding. Cons of fenced-in places: can’t control status. For example, in a fenced-in park, if someone enters with an unfixed male, there is no where to take your group to avoid the unfixed male.
Sarah: Dogs will play in a fenced-in area for the first 15 minutes or so and then will just stand around. They get bored. If there is a sign of trouble with another dog, no where to go for a hike. In open space, you take dogs somewhere else to distract them.
Victoria: If there were a large fenced-in space, such as 10 acres, it would definitely by welcome. Would love not to have to deal with mountain bikers/picnickers.
Scott: In San Diego, places to take dogs have many acres. Works well. Also there is two to three dog beaches.
Sarah: PDWs and casual owners should be certified and licensed to have a dog. Would be happy to pay yearly fee as PDW. A fair rate would be $150-200/year. Would volunteer time to clean up.
Scott: PDWs pay flat fee/sign up/provide bags. Get some marketing out of it in return (for fenced-in park in particular).
Victoria: Plus of fenced-in area is that children cannot go in there; can’t have picnic tables. What would also be helpful is to know when someone has lodged a complaint against you. Has had false complaints against her company in the past. Regulation needs to come from own industry. Independent entities often fly under the radar. Would like to see the registration process come from the DCR; PDWs could be given an ID number and use that number (e.g., IDs posted at front gate). Whether off-leash or not, need more education and signage. For example, in order to lodge a complaint against a PDW, must have registration number.
Sarah: PDWs are big asset. They are beneficial. People are hiring them specifically to have their dogs play in groups.
Charles: Seen personally the benefits that PDWs give to whole community. Animals are taken out to socialize. Has seen opposite end: animals cooped up/not socialized/barking/aggressive/ leads to other problems in the urban center. Gives credit to responsible owners.
David: One of the benefits of individuals taking dog(s) out is you have a healthier dog(s).
Jim: Note from Joel: CDOG supports responsible PDWs.
The question of limiting the number of dogs to a playgroup was brought to the table. General response among PDWs: Advertising a limited number of dogs for a park is a bad idea. Regulating certain number of dog at different levels of PDW experience.
Victoria: If there is going to be a cap on the number of dogs, it should be no more than 12.
Sarah: Give us our own location and parking lot, off the beaten path.
The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 from 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. Please email lisa.mcfarren@comcast.net or consult CRC calendar for more details.
1:39 PM
Correction to the minutes of the Jan. 31, 2007, meeting. The passage below is incorrect:
Lisa – If more parks provided off-leash recreation to dog owners (fenced and non-fenced), the use in parks would be result in a heavy concentration of dog owner use in places such as the Fells, Callahan, and Willards Woods in Lexington.
The passage should read:
Lisa – If more parks provided off-leash recreation to dog owners (fenced and non-fenced), there would not be the heavy concentration of dog owner use in places such as the Fells, Callahan, and Willards Woods in Lexington.
12:48 PM
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Making Parks Welcome to Dog Owners and Their Dogs
Chairs:
Lisa McFarren, Somerville Dog Owners Group
Attendees:
Gary Briere, Chief, Bureau of Recreation, DCR
Cathi Collins, Friends of the Elm Bank
Ann Dorfman, NewtonDogs
Jim Fitzgerald, COAA/CDOG
Christina A. Doctoroff, External Affairs and Partnerships, DCR
David Monahan, FellsDOG
Mike Ryan, Friends of the Middlesex Fells
Betsy Shure Gross, OPPP EOEEA
Richard Stewart, North Region Supervisor, DCR; Park Manager, Middlesex Fells
Ethel Woodard, Special Assistant, OPPP EOEEA
• Cathi Collins (new member)– Elm Bank Reservation – group was started by dog lovers to address the needs of all park users. The issues were working with DCR staff supervising the Blue Hills area. Dog owners feel there is not cooperation from the DCR and they are frustrated by not having their calls or messages returned. Christina Doctoroff said she had not heard from the group but would talk to them.
• Richard Steward, District Manager of Fells District. New member.
Presentations were given that looked at successful models of dog parks in the country and around the world.
• David Monahan – (FellsDogSODA) presented a talk on SODA Washington State Park – it is a 40 acre park off-leash dog park along a river. Group began as “Save Our Dog Areas” but in its growth has changed its name to “Serve Our Dog Area”
o Ques. – what is the management?– it is a small maintenance – they do a monthly “poop” clean up
o Ques. – how are the rules enforced? – think that it is done by the volunteers
o Ques. – when the clean ups are done – where does the waste go? – don’t know –DCR picks up the bags and cart them away
o Comment
Balance is needed with other wildlife animals (i.e., SODA works with rangers to help with salmon during spawning season).
Think that a fenced-in dog area is the best solution thus far.
• Theme: Let’s get together – bring folks to the table and work out a plan to work together.
Partnership – Dog Owners and Land Management
• Jim Fitzgerald – Millie Bush Park – it is 17 acres, located West of Houston host 1,000 visitors per day. Park so successful that it was increased to 35 acreas.
• New Zealand – it is state driven, the updated dog rules were quite controversial and the mayor diffused it with new rules. City is responsible for the parks for dog owners and the people by rewarding dog owners. There is a list of parks where no dogs are allowed. They also work with the schools to hold various activities
o Ques. – do you have a concern with other parks advertising – is there a risk of losing the acres? Somerville near Dilboy which is DCR property – the goal is to take the pressure off of places like the Fells Sheepfold by providing new and more property. Places like the Fells are overcrowded because there is a need for dog recreation. Recommend that the state do an overall survey of all open spaces
o Ques. – the $500 fine – was there funding in place? It is retained revenue – 60% from the dog owners that go back into the park and not into a general fund.
Dick Stewart: Visited Old Quarry Park (7.5 acres fenced-in) in Portland, Maine, on a Saturday– it is limited to the handicap, no other animals(wildlife) in the park, there is excess dog waste. In the open play area, there were many dog fights – saw at least 100 dogs – the mixture of dogs warrants an unsafe response – the rules are listed and parking is an issue. Did say it was a beautiful space to walk you dog.
Lisa pointed out that her experience there was different: saw little or no dog waste in her visits there (never visited on a Saturday when apparently it is crowded). The park was large enough so if you did not want your dog around too many dogs, you had a place to go. Biggest problem for her was there were so many bushes separating the parking spaces from the park that there had been many break-ins.
Ann Dorfman: Presented talk on Boulder, Colorado – off-leash areas.
– There is an artificial turf hill that cost about $4 million – city refuse to spend on off-leash.
– The City Parks open space and mountain parks have 45 acres that are fenced and the population is 40,000 people
– Map – Demarcation – trails for on/off leash
o A permit is needed.
o A video “recall” is required to view
o Must wear a tag to confirm you have seen the video and
o there are rangers present to enforce the “recall”
– University of Colorado – Jerry Baske – Boulder, CO – there is a survey with dog owners and their interaction in the park
o Ques. – what is the permit fee? Not sure a survey of ten communities of the permit process was done and the results was that it was not consistent, the open space plan had no mention of dog walkers for the City/Sate – it was considered as “passive activity”
o Ques. – was there an equity distribution of resources? There is a complete list of all facilities which shows the cost to maintain and/or use – the focus was servicing taxpayer needs
Powerpoint presentation on Brookline’s off-leash hours provided by Erin Chute Gallentine of the Town of Brookline:
Program Effective:
o Willingness to listen
o Fight to get surveys out to reduce cost
o Lot of communication and cooperation
Feedback
o Brookline has 600 acres
o Erin was very professional
o Data was provided
o Education was key to getting everyone on the same page as it shifted the paradigm – space vs. time
o Goal was how to make it work to meet the needs logically/politically and it was thoroughly crafted
Many are fenced or non-fenced
Look at more models of what is working and not working
Group discussion on the direction this working group should take
Meeting postponed from August to Thursday, September 27, from 3:00 pm – 5:00 pm at the DCR, 251 Causeway St., Boston, MA 02114. Please contact Lisa McFarren at lisa.mcfarren@comcast.net if you are interested in attending this meeting.
10:27 AM
Thursday, Sept. 27
"Making Parks More Welcome to Dog Owners and Their Dogs"
Attendees:
Lisa McFarren, co-chair
Richard Stewart, DCR
Samantha Overton,
Several agenda items were presented and discussed. There was a call to create a "mission statement" for the working group at the next meeting. Three main topics emerged that we agreed needed sub-groups to focus on and the present to the working group as a whole during the course of several future meetings: 1) White Paper 2) Park survey; 3) Responsible Dog Ownership and Land Management. Other topic agendas items are listed below as well.
1. White Paper: Joel Feingold and David Monahan will take the matrix that we developed in the spring and work it into text as a foundation for a "White Paper" that will draft a policy that both state and land management may be able to use for dog owners and their dogs in parks. Joel will be sending the draft of this initial text for review to the working group a week before the Oct. 25 meeting, so we will be prepared to discuss and comment on it. If you are interested on working on the "White Paper", please contact Joel Feingold at blammo@rcn.com and David Monahan at davidm418@aol.com.
2. Park Survey: Cathi Collins and David Monahan will be working on a survey on dogs in parks; Cathi will send an message out to the group requesting ideas and input from everyone. If you are interested in working on the survey, please contact Cathi Collins at cmcollin@bu.edu and David Monahan at davidm418@aol.com.
3. Responsible Dog Ownership/Land Management:
a. Richard Stewart and Mike Ryan asked for ideas to create more compliance among dog owners to work with land management so that park rules are followed (e.g., leashing dogs in designated areas, picking up poop, etc.).
b. I presented Somerville Dog Owner's Group new "No Pile Left Behind" initiative where dog owners pledge to pick up after their dogs (with a second pledge for those who are willing to pick up after others who do not clean up after their dogs). This pledge could be expanded to the state level.
If you would like to work on ideas for RDOs/Land Management, please contact me at lisa.mcfarren@comcast.net.
Other topics for meetings are as follows:
4. Working with the DCR: How best can dog owner groups work with the DCR? Who are the people they should contact? What paths should these groups follow to create a productive partnership with DCR? Could there be a page on the DCR website that presents information for dog owners?
5. Funding: Looking at various ways to fund off-leash recreation in parks, including looking at dog license fees and how the allocation of those fees could be changed with legislation to benefit dog owners?
6. Expanding the working group: The group is growing, but are there other perspectives that should be brought to the table? Should we have representatives from veterinarians, the MSPCA, State Public Board of Health, etc.
7. Off-leash recreational areas (OLRAs)/dog parks: What is available in Massachusetts? What is in progress? Where are OLRAs needed? Could a legal "dog beach" be established? Could a "dog census" (with statistics from rabies shot data) help in providing information?
7:31 AM
PinP Dogs Committee Meeting Minutes
October 25, 2007
Making Parks Welcome to Dog Owners and Their Dogs
Co-Chair:
Lisa McFarren, Somerville Dog Owners Group
Attendees:
Ann Dorfman, NewtonDogs
Helen Fairman, Cambridge Dog
Joel Feingold, CCOA/CDOG
Brian McLaughlin, Executive Secretary, Boston Parks & Recreation
David Monahan, FellsDOG
Mike Ryan, Friends of the Middlesex Fells
Richard Stewart, North Region Supervisor, DCR; Park Manager, Middlesex Fells
Ethel Woodard, Special Assistant, OPPP EOEEA
Feedback:
o Dog owner rights – what does it mean?
o Define “good dog recreational spaces”
o Endangered species is too narrow and not all inclusive
o Purpose of White paper – it is an advocate for making parks more welcome to dog owners and their dogs
o Emphasize rights as a “park user”
o Use “dog owners needs”
Focus:
o How do we share the parks in the state that best meet the needs of the population
o Dog owners break laws
o Play by the rules
Suggestion
o Create sub groups
o “Off leash” in the subtitle
Mission statement – David Monohan
To explore ways to increase opportunities for Dog Owners and their dogs to enjoy ways for public/private in the commonwealth
o Add (multi-use/dedicated)
Project – Dog Census – Lisa
Survey
o Purpose
o Habits of use of DCR parks
o Value added
o Behavior of cleanliness of users
o Add questions on owners and non-owners
o Discuss the logistics – is it doable due to resources
o Expert – Kathy Collins
o R. Stewart – November – solicit surveys
Next Meeting: Will be determined via email.
7:35 AM
Making Parks Welcome to Dog Owners and Their Dogs
PinP Dogs Committee Meeting Minutes
November 15, 2007
Co-Chair:
Lisa McFarren, Somerville Dog Owners Group
Attendees:
Helen Fairman, Cambridge Dog
Christina Doctoroff, External Affairs and Partnerships, DCR
Joel Feingold, CCOA/CDOG
Samantha Overton Bussell, Deputy Director of Urban Parks, DCR
Mike Ryan, Friends of the Middlesex Fells
Richard Stewart, North Region Supervisor, DCR; Park Manager, Middlesex Fells
Discussion
Mission statement
Latest revision: The Partners in Parks Dog Working Group [correct name?] was formed to explore opportunities for adequate legal access to public and private parklands in the Commonwealth for off-leash recreation with dogs. Working in partnership with public and private land managers and organizations, the Working Group identifies and creates both dedicated and shared-use off-leash recreational space, taking into account the needs of various park users and protecting environmentally sensitive areas.
Discussion on the name of the working group, “Making Parks More Welcome to Dog Owners and Their Dogs”. Lisa admitted she always thought it was too long-winded, but most of the group agreed it captured what the nature of the working group encompassed and that it should be kept.
CRC blog
Helen asked for blog url to post on Cambridge Dog website. Lisa expressed concern that there is no longer a link on the CRC home page to get to the blog and that the only means to access the blog is to type the url in directly (http://conservationandrecreation.blogspot.com/). If the public cannot have access into the blog, The question of whether or not the CRC page should this be the best home for the working groups blog was raised.
Minutes
There was general agreement that the minutes from the previous meeting should be voting on at the beginning of the current meeting. Any discussion on minutes should be during a meeting and not over email.
Dog Recreational “White” paper
Throughout discussion, Joel incorporated comments that the group agreed to for the next draft of the paper on his laptop. This draft will be sent out prior to the next meeting with these revisions.
General discussion:
History: Up until 50-60 years ago dogs ran free; in 70s and 80s signage changed in parks to “No Dogs Allowed” or “Leash Free”. Dog owners given few or no options to legally exercise and socialize dogs. Forced to “break law”; DCR response: no one is ever forced to “break law”. Consensus: Purpose of group is to resolve problems by working together to create solutions for dog owners, land management, and other parks users as well.
Matrix: Must be considered and incorporated into document. Environmental and wildlife issues focused on. Water safety a concern. Space that is provided must be well thought and well designed.
Health and public safety of community: Incidences of dog bites brought up. Safety of other park users—particularly children. Legal off-leash areas are created in part to prevent these types of incidents. Signage of off-leash hours or actual fenced-in space very important. Properly socialized dogs are found to be much more friendly. Space for off-leash area must consider matrix/controls within area (e.g., signage, etc.).
Concerns on use of space: Concern: once a space is created, it is hard to take it away. Response: different types of users do the same: e.g., ball fields, tennis courts, etc. However, if dog owners have a legal space to go to with their dogs that takes pressure off of other areas of a park and makes enforcement of leash-only areas more doable.
Next Meeting: Thursday, December 13, 2007
***DECEMBER 13, 2007 meeting cancelled due to severe weather.****
Next meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 10, 2008 from 3:00-5:00 p.m. at the DCR
7:38 AM
Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!
4:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home