DCR Middlesex Fells Trail Planning Workshop

[DogOwnerWhoVotes]

Thanks again to the DCR for providing all user groups the opportunity
to contribute to a new Fells Trail Plan at its February 8 workshop!
DCR will hold another public meeting in April, and will announce its
new Trail Plan in May.
This DCR report on the Fells has lots of interesting info about the
park:
http://www.mass.gov/dcr/news/publicmeetings/materials/greenwaystrails/2010-2-8-presentation.pdf

[Michele Biscoe]

And thanks to everyone who made time to come to the meeting! It would be nice to hear here from everyone who attended.  What did you think of the meeting?

One thing that struck me was that, in the reports from the small groups, it was repeatedly said that people want an off-leash area, "but it doesn't have to be at sheepfold." Even the person who reported back from my group used this language, despite the fact that I was the one person in that group who spoke about off-leash recreation and I specifically said that I wanted  to be able to have my dog off-leash at Sheepfold and on the trails without breaking the law.   As this process moves forward it is critical that people who want off-leash recreation at Sheepfold to be legal to make our voices heard.

According to the DCR the Sheepfold is ten acres.  Most of the off-leash recreation now probably takes place on three acres (beyond the kiosk, close to the parking lot).  Would you agree?  With a well-planned fenced-in (or at least partially fenced in) OLRA, Sheepfold could accommodate, soapbox, sledding, kite-flying and off-leash recreation without conflict. 

The DCR is still accepting public comment on the Middlesex Fells Trail Plan.  You can mail or e-mail your comments to 

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

The DCR offers the following six guiding questions to help people prepare their comments:

1. How do you (and your family) use the trails at the Middlesex Fells? (i.e. what parts of the Fells; how often; what kinds uses; what times of day, week and year; etc.)
2. What would you describe as some of the highlights of the Fells trail system? (i.e. what scenic, natural or cultural resources and destinations are important to you?)
3. What would you describe as some of the problems with the trail system at the Fells that affect your trail experience there?
4. Can you describe the “recreational experience(s)” that you find most enjoyable at the Fells? (This might include the level of difficulty, interaction with other users, length of the use, type of use, etc. Feel free to write about your best Fells experience.)
5. If you could make three changes in the Fells trail system, what would they be?
6. What other comments would you like us to consider as we develop our trail system plan for the Middlesex Fells?

Finally, I encourage everyone who was not at the meeting to have a look at the presentation slides at http://www.mass.gov/dcr/news/publicmeetings/materials/greenwaystrails/2010-2-8-presentation.pdf

In particular there is a pie chart on page 18 that shows that 31% of the User Counts for October-November 2009 at Flynn Rink, Bellview Pond, and Sheepfold were dogs.  I think the DCR presented this information this way to get a laugh (which they did), but it is no laughing matter that the DCR does not count people with dogs as a distinct user group.  At the meeting, I specifically asked about the percentage of people at the Fells with dogs and was told that people with dogs were among the 69% of human users.

Cheers,

Michele

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to "FellsDOG" at Google Groups.

[Jay - FidoLoves.com]

I was struck with the same concern where other groups kept saying off-
leash, not necessarily at Sheepfold. The group reporter from our group
a GBNEMBA member and dog owner did not even mention Sheepfold during
his report, (i brought it up multiple times). Instead of being polite
I should have spoken up; which is my fault. I am a avid mountain biker
w/ my dog, less at the fells. But after listening to other
conversations the other night. I am concerned of the lack dog owner
support considering dog owners were one of the largest user groups
according to the DCR. Why any other group would have such interest in
an open field I have no idea.

Sheepfold is probably one of the best places I have come across so
far. The filed has natural boundaries and is isolated from the hustle
and bustle of everything else. The grass and weeds recover easily when
it becomes heavily used. It is already bordered by the old rusty fence
on the bottom side and the swamp on the high side. The parking lot
away from the road is perfect for getting your dog in and out of your
car.

I am putting an article about the meeting on my blog later today.
http://fidoloves.com

I will argue dog owners need to work together or Sheepfold could
become a pea stone dog run somewhere else

~ Jay
www.fidoloves.com

[DogOwnerWhoVotes]

Joel Feingold, Past President of Callahan DOG in Framingham, copied us
on the letter that he sent to Paul Jahnige at DCR this week regarding
the Fells Trail Plan. Joel not only has a wealth of knowledge about
planning an off-leash recreation area from his work at Callahan, but
he also knows the Fells situation very well, having served on a
Partners in Parks working group on dog recreation issues, which
focused much of its discussion on the Middlesex Fells. There is much
food for thought in Joel's letter:

Dear Paul,

As you and your colleagues at the Department of Conservation and
Recreation delve into the various issues surrounding the many
different activities that take place at the Middlesex Fells
Reservation you will hear a huge range of opinions that lead to a
similarly huge range of policy proposals. I’m going to encourage you
and the DCR to think of these opinions and policy proposals sort of
like figure skating scores. Throw out the highest and lowest!
Hopefully that sounds both a little funny and about right. Here’s why:

If I, as a proponent of vast tracts of open space being available for
dog owners to exercise their dogs and socialize with their friends,
said that every acre of the Fells should be available for off leash
recreation space (OLRS) then I should be considered unreasonable or
ignorant or both. Among other things, there are adjacent roads,
parking lots and swimming. These areas are incompatible with dogs off
leash for safety and hygiene reasons.

If another, for example, a proponent of conservation of wildlife,
proposed a policy to prohibit off leash dogs in the entire 2,500 acres
of the Fells because of purported environmental damage, knowing that
the great bulk of the land does not host endangered species, than that
person or organization should also be considered unreasonable or
ignorant or both. It’s abundantly obvious that there is lots of space
to accommodate owners of dogs who like to hike or socialize while
their dogs are off leash, under voice control.

The dynamic of “screamers,” on Fox and MSNBC, is not going to help in
the actual making of policy. What is needed is calm and good
reasoning. Our experience at Callahan State Park can be helpful.

From its inception Callahan State Park (that encompasses about 500
acres) was open to off leash recreation space. (Any regulations that
were in place aside, this was the operational norm for decades.)
Historically there had even been a kennel with Foxhounds within its
boundaries. When the DCR attempted to impose an on-leash regulation
for the entire space there was an enormous backlash. CalDOG was formed
and in only 3 weeks nearly 1,000 dog owners signed our petition asking
that their rights not be summarily taken from them.

As we examined use patterns, we found that, over a full year (as
seasonal use does vary,) about 70% of users were dog owners. They were
at Callahan because it was OLRS. It is crucial to note that the second
largest user group was mountain bikers, a number of whom also had
their dogs with them. These two groups comprise the largest number of
DCR customers at Callahan State Park. After much rancor the DCR did
put in place a OLRS policy that relies upon a perimeter of on leash
trails with the interior available for off leash activities. It is a
multi-use park.

The Callahan State Park example is crucially important to inform the
Middlesex Fells Reservation discussion. The wildlife at Callahan is
anything but scared off by the dogs. Park users’ canines are well fed
house pets and 99.9% ignore the wildlife as they are playing ball,
walking with their owners and other dog owners and dogs in the woods,
or playing in a stream or pond. Turkey in the neighborhood are
fearless. The number of deer, rodents, birds and such are very high.
The coyote stalk the dogs, not the other way around. The Jack in the
Pulpit are not in jeopardy. The vernal pool is unmarked, 30 yards off
a major trail and would be virgin territory except for humans who know
it’s there and want to see what one looks like.

As you and the DCR listen and read the testimony of the various user
groups please remember that there is lots of space. The Fells is a
multi-use facility already. It must have use policies in place that
allow reasonable amounts of all feasible uses.

The argument that says a 1 or 10 acre fenced area is sufficient for an
OLRS within 2,500+ acres with trails and woods and ponds is extreme
and should be treated as such. A casual observer will note that a
large number of visitors who enjoy the trails are dog owners. One of
the greatest pleasures I’ve experienced is going for a real hike with
a friend and a couple of dogs. Real conversation, the scent of the
woods, and it doesn’t matter if it is raining. So a single fenced area
is both far too little and doesn’t allow the dog owners to use large
areas that in fairness should be available to them too.

For the great majority of other park users, over most of the land
comprising the Fells, OLRS could be formally implemented with no
deleterious impacts. In fact, by allowing and sign posting behavior
and uses that may often occur now, potential conflicts between users
will be reduced. The same holds true for DCR policies restricting
mountain biking. Trails should be usable by both dog owners with their
pets off leash and by mountain bikers unless prohibited for a specific
reason such as proximity to roads and parking areas, excessively steep
terrain, presence of large numbers of children, picnic areas, or other
real and valid reason. To rephrase and emphasize, this is really a
paradigm shift: rather than saying that popular recreational
activities are prohibited except in or on highly limited areas and
trails, the standard should be one of multi-use allowing off leash
activity for dogs and mountain biking unless specifically prohibited.

At the Fells, with 2,500 acres, there is room for this. Attempts to
delay appropriate implementation of fair use policies by allegations
of insufficient study should be understood to be what they are:
tactics to obstruct legitimate and reasonable use by a large component
of the total users. If there are areas within the Fells that are so
sensitive, then they should be off limits to all users, not only bike
riders and dog owners.

In conclusion, given the large amount of space available and
significant number of users, fundamental fairness demands that the DCR
allocate large swaths of the Fells and numerous trails within to dog
owners for off leash recreation space and bike riders for mountain
biking.

Sincerely,

Joel A. Feingold
Past President
Callahan DOG

> park:http://www.mass.gov/dcr/news/publicmeetings/materials/greenwaystrails...