DCR Middlesex Fells Meeting, Monday, Feb. 8, 2010, at McGlynn School, Medford
DogOwnerWhoVotes
Fells
Monday, February 8, 2010
McGlynn School Auditorium, 3001 Mystic Valley Parkway, Medford
Please pass the word on to your friends! We must ensure that the
voices of dog owners are heard at this meeting! This is our chance to
show the DCR how many dog owners use the Fells, and care about
protecting this natural resource. There is no better way to
demonstrate that legal off-leash activity at the Sheepfold should be a
part of the new Trail System Plan, and can be implemented in a way
which respects the rights of all park users.
Keep in mind, there will likely be a large crowd of people at this
meeting. In addition to dog owners and other park users, there will
surely be a strong contingent of members of the New England Mountain
Bike Association and also the Friends of the Fells. We can best make
our case for recognition of the rights of dog owners by a) attending
the meeting to show that we use the park and we care, and b)
contributing at appropriate times and in an orderly fashion.
Next time you visit the Sheepfold, please tell others about this
meeting!
Rocio Soto
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:36:42 -0800
> Subject: [FellsDOG] DCR Middlesex Fells Meeting, Monday, Feb. 8, 2010, at McGlynn School, Medford
> From: davi...@aol.com
> To: fell...@googlegroups.com
> You received this message because you are subscribed to "FellsDOG" at Google Groups.
Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
DogOwnerWhoVotes
important detail out of my post!
Please see the FellsDOG main webpage for more details about the
meeting, and sending comments to the DCR.
WhippetGirl
comment prepared ahead of time-- that way if you want to sign up to
speak you're ready to be brief and to the point. Dogs don't pay
taxes, so focus on how much more YOU enjoy the Fells when you bring
your dog along. :-)
- Lise
duke
is are you trying to get a fenced area or just a designated area. I do
enjoy bringing my dog to sheepfold but he is a hound and if he picks
up a scent there is no stopping him. Also some people want to pass by
with their dogs and head to the trail instead of having their dog
play. This ofcourse is fine, but if my dog likes their dog he will
follow them and I will have to chase after him. From going to
sheepfold I am certain I am not the only one with this problem. I know
its my fault for not having a better trained dog but thats exactly why
I like parks with fenced areas. I hope the plan is to propose a fenced
area, if not would you please consider it. We could have a fundraiser
to pay for the fence and I would be happy to be involved. Thankyou and
I hope to see you on the 8th.
On Jan 25, 11:36 pm, DogOwnerWhoVotes <davidm...@aol.com> wrote:
DogOwnerWhoVotes
into workgroups where smaller groups of attendees will work together
on discussing and prioritizing various options regarding the Fells
trails and parks. In other words, dog owners who attended the DCR
meeting years back to hear about a proposed fenced-in area should
expect a very different type of meeting-- this is not likely to
involve a series of comments to the group from attendees. So dog
owners can serve to convey our right and need to have the opportunity
to exercise and socialize our dogs at the Fells by a) ATTENDING the
meeting, and b) being prepared to contribute in our workgroups, with
productive ideas that take into account protection of our natural
resources and the rights of all park users. Likely topics, as they
apply to dog owners, include: fenced-in vs. not fenced; whether to
designate certain hours for off-leash activity; whether to require
registration or a fee for dog owners to use the park; ways to enforce
clean-up and other rules, etc.
As to the previous comment re fencing in the Sheepfold... In my
opinion, there are places where fenced-in off-leash areas are
appropriate-- such as in urban areas. In a large area like the
Sheepfold, where there is little danger of dogs running into traffic,
a fenced-in area should not be the first option. Off-leash parks
without fences have been successful in many areas in Massachusetts and
elsewhere. I also note that opponents of off-leash recreation often
resort to proposing a fenced-in area as a way to try to limit dog
owners to a very small area of a given park. That's what the Fells
district leadership proposed at that meeting years ago-- a one-acre
fenced-in area. After dog owners vehemently objected, the DCR said
they recognized that the space was inadequate.
duke
right? 1 acre would be huge. I think a fenced area should strongly be
considered. Even though sheepfold is away from the street. its is
still near the parking lot, also there are always people walking by
that may not be dog friendly. Also there are children sledding in the
winter and some dogs chase after them and can injure them. My friends
son was scratched last week by a chasing dog. Not everyone has total
control over their dog and need a fenced area where they can play and
socialize with other dogs. Unless there is a fence it will never truly
be a dog area. I hope we are talking about the same area ( up the hill
top parking lot where that huge open field is that runs down hill) I
have been to several dog parks and that area is big enough to build 5
of them. If they were to fence off an area say the size of a small
little league baseball field away from the area where the kids sled,
it would be the best situation for everyone. The dog owners would not
have to worry about their dogs, and the non dog owners would not have
to be bothered. I strongly urge to push for a fence. I hope I can
attend the meeting so I can voice this as a priority. I am actually
quite surprised that a dog owners group would push for a dog park
without a fence. It really defeats the purpose.
> > > meeting!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
DogOwnerWhoVotes
exactly like what Mike Ryan and Mike Arnott have said to me in the
past. Ryan and Arnott are leaders of the Friends of the Fells, and
regardless of what their members think, they fight ardently against
the rights of dog owners and bikers to enjoy the Fells. Though dog
owners and bikers have shown that they use the Fells in a responsible
way that protects the environment.
Helpful reminder to all who will attend the meeting on Monday-- when
speaking in your workgroups, be prepared to calmly dispel the baseless
statements that Friends of the Fells' leadership will make that show
no understanding of the needs of dog owners and bikers, and no
knowledge of the types of parks that serve these user groups in Mass.
and elsewhere. Best to continue to work productively with your
workgroup and not be thrown off by such baseless statements. These
folks often make unsupported statements about pollution to the nearby
reservoir from dog waste, and the threat to birds and animals from
dogs and bikers. And they always have some story about hundreds of
people who report that they were "scratched," "attacked," or in some
other way harassed by a dog in the Fells, or how irresponsible dog
owners are in picking up dog waste. When those who use the park know
that the great majority of dog owners keep a very close eye on the
behavior of their pets, and do pick up their waste. I defy anyone to
show me a park used by hundreds of people a day which is as CLEAN at
the end of the day as the Sheepfold is.
For the record, one acre would not be huge, it would be small, which
is why the Fells district leadership later proposed a TEN acre dog
park, which never did get off the ground. Yes, there are fenced parks
in urban areas which are one acre or less. There are also many parks,
in New England and elsewhere, which are ten acres or much larger,
where off-leash recreation is permitted. Some of these parks have
fences around them, and many do not.
jessica.r...@comcast.net
I'm a new subscriber to your discussion but I'm interested to hear more about the fence/no fence.
I hope that dog owners would not object to a one-acre fenced area. This still seems like such a great thing for so many of us. I currently have a dog that cannot be reliable off leash (not dangerous, but a scent means she's gone) and would so welcome a large area where she could play and run. Fences don't necessarily seem to me to be restrictive, but protective in many ways. As a responsible dog owner, I will not let my dog off leash if there is a chance she will run away, especially in an area that close to the highway. For that reason, I've never brought her to the Sheepfold, but I would love it if there were a fenced area where I could bring her in the future.
Is there a general feeling in this group that a fenced area wouldn't be welcome? I would love to hear the pros and cons.
Thanks!
Jessica
leslie diamond
live, I can think of at least 3. There are, however, very few parks
with trails, ponds, etc, where we can go with our dogs. The Sheepfold
is only one part of the Fells, and not the part that I and my dog
enjoy the most. She loves hiking the trails with me and swimming in
the ponds in the Fells (note: we don't let her in the reservoirs!).
Personally, I would hate to see people with dogs limited to some small
1 acre, or even 10 acre fenced in area. Although my dog gets along
with other dogs, she is very submissive and tends to get nervous
around large groups of dogs rather than relaxing and playing. She, and
I, would much rather be hiking the trails, playing fetch, and swimming
in other parts of the Fells. If this were taken away in favor of a
fenced in area then the Fells will become just like all the other
fenced in dog parks we already have.
Leslie
PS: I was ASTONISHED while in San Francisco in December to visit a
dog park right in the middle of the city that was not fenced in. I
certainly appreciate the need to contain and protect our dogs in busy
areas with cars all around, but the woods should be able to be enjoyed
without fences.
duke
that maybe you misunderstood me. And maybe I misunderstood you. It
sounds like you want to be able to bring your dog off leash anywhere
in sheepfold. And I %100 agree that we should be able to do that. And
if thats the case 1 acre would be rediculous. But lots of people like
me, in addition to wanting to walk with our dogs in the woods, also
like to let them run and play with other dogs in a secure area. So
they idea of having both of these situations in one place is ideal. As
far as sounding like "Mike Ryan and Mike Arnott" (Whoever they are, I
have no clue) If your refering to me mentioning that my friends son
got scratched by a dog while sledding, Its true and we all know that
people cant always controll their dogs off leash. So for those people
(trust me their are a lot of them) A fenced dog park is ideal. And for
those who want to run or hike with their dogs, an off leash rule is
ideal. I fall into both categories and would like to see both.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
duke
that not everyone is a dog person, and I try not to shove my dog down
their throat. I hope thats not the practice of this group.
On Feb 2, 7:09 am, DogOwnerWhoVotes <davidm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Michelle!
These settings do work in urban neigbhorhoods (Medford is 3 miles away from Boston and is pretty urban - this is something that is missing) and I hope you understand that right across the street from Sheepsfold is Rt 93. I know that is worst case scenerio but it could happen. I love dogs and it breaks my heart to see "lost dogs" pictures. Trails or streets if your dog is lost it is the worst feeling in the world. I wish they would find a resolution and honestly I haven't heard any great points about why the dogs need to be unleashed.. an acre is huge and if you walk around the rest of the fells with a leash that's fine.. it would be sad to see your dog to get hit accidentally by a bicycle.
I drive into Boston to Peter's Park every weekend to a very small park, but at least it is safe. This would be safe and convenient for everyone.
???Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
From: sean...@comcast.netDate: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:37:02 +0000 (UTC)To: <fell...@googlegroups.com>Subject: Re: [FellsDOG] Re: DCR Middlesex Fells Meeting, Monday, Feb. 8, 2010, at McGlynn School, MedfordHi, how are you? I'm Sean.
PGF
bureaucracy makes me disbelieve that the DCR would actually allow both
a fenced dog park in the Sheepfold Meadow and reasonable (i.e. through
noon or 1 pm) off-leash hours for dogs to romp through the reserve.
And I think of my dog's needs firsts; especially since, though he is
not 100% under perfect control at all times, he is good about bikes
and joggers (i.e. avoiding them), and a generally friendly dog. But
he needs a large area, larger than one acre, to walk in; otherwise he
won't get enough exercise; he is not a dog who runs hard with other
dogs. And in the summer, he hates the heat, and slows down in it;
that's why I come to the Fells in the warmer months and use the
trails, because they are well-shaded and cool.
I would welcome a plan that includes both a fenced area for those dog
owners who need it; though, given the number of dogs I see at the
Fells, I think that it would need to be larger than one acre. I might
even use it occasionally, to socialize. It would also, if this area
had multiple waste baskets, be a good idea to take one's dog into this
park, let him/her socialize and excrete, pick up the waste and throw
it into the wastebaskets and then take the dog walking on the trails
if one wants - which would lessen the amont of dog waste bags
littering the Sheepfold and the trails. But I, and other dog owners,
would want to be able to take our dogs for off-leash walking on the
trails - that's why I usually come to the Fells, especially in the
warmer months.
An ideal plan would be: Off-leash hours all over the Fells until 1 pm
every day of the year; and a six-acre fenced dog park in the Sheepfold
Meadow open all the time, with benches and waste baskets. I doubt
we'd be given that much. I'd even opt for off-leash hours until 11 am
in Fall and Winter if the off-leash hours could be extended until 1 pm
in the Spring and Summer (since it stays light so much later). I
don't think we'll get that lucky, but it would be nice.
I think it is a shame that there are so few areas in the Boston area
that allow people to take their dogs off-leash for a run in the woods
- the Fells are so large that it seems to me it would be a natural and
workable place for this activity. Dogs deserve to have some places to
run unhindered; and almost every dog I have seen at the Fells is at
least human-friendly, if not dog-tolerant (and most of them are). And
dog owners' taxes fund public land - why shouldn't we be able to let
our dogs run free on at least some of that land?
I just worry that if the DCR allowed a fenced dog park in the Fells,
they, and other anti-dog forces and people, would come down much
harder on dogs being off-leash on the trails. It would be wonderful
if both were allowed.
Pat and (english cocker spaniel) Rocky
DogOwnerWhoVotes
thinking like that will be helpful to the dialogue at the DCR
meeting.
One note on the possibility of designating off-leash hours in any
particular area of the Fells. I think that in many communities where
they have found that to be an appropriate measure they have designated
both morning and afternoon/early evening periods for off-leash
recreation. Banning dog owners say, from 1:00 pm on, would not make
sense, in my opinion, since the time when the greatest number of dog
owners visit the Fells during spring and summer on weekdays is after
work-- from 4 or 5 pm until sunset.
> > > Jessica>>>>- Hide quoted text -
WhippetGirl
I have three dogs and I'm another one in the "no fence, thanks"
camp.
First, fenced-in areas are usually small due to the expense of
fencing. An acre, for instance, is a square 200 feet on a side. In
my Medford neighborhood, that's two and a half lot widths. For the
number of people who want to use the sheepfold, that's laughable: that
much traffic in that small an area would leave it a muddy pit within a
few weeks. Goodness knows there's some worn spots now, but the more
we can spread out the traffic the better chance we have of a dog area
with grass instead of mud.
Second, I don't think fenced parks are safe for the more "iffy" dogs.
The entry gate is often mobbed with curious loose dogs on the inside,
which can make smaller or more nervous dogs really tense since they
know they can't get away. And a tense dog plus a mob of excited dogs
plus very limited maneuvering options is a combination that I just
don't feel comfortable with. I far prefer the Sheepfold, because if
your dog isn't sure about meeting thirty other rampaging dogs, that's
cool, you can just detour around them.
Third, for young, athletic dogs, even if they were the only dog in a
square-ish one-acre fenced area, it would barely be enough space for
them to chase a frisbee in a straight line! The diagonal of a one-
acre square is about three hundred feet; even I can use up that
distance with a frisbee throw, not to mention the guy with the tennis
ball launcher and the very active Lab.
I hope that helps explain at least one take on why many of us wouldn't
find a fenced area usable.
- Lise
Michele Biscoe
with no fence is going to have to address is how, without a fence, the
Sheepfold can accommodate not only off-leash recreation but also other
recreational activities.
Representatives from the DCR will be interested specifically in a
solution to this problem, as, I expect, will the Friends of the Fells,
the New England Mountain Bike Association, the people who use the
soapbox derby track, the father who wants to take his family kite-
flying in the Fells, and the mother who wants to take her family
sledding.
Would signage work to delimit part of sheepfold where people can have
their dogs off-leash and another part that people can enjoy confident
that dogs will not be off-leash where they are playing? What about a
combination of signage and partial fencing? Certainly, a fence along
the path, that would corral off-leash dogs on one side of that path,
would allow mountain bikes, cross-country skiers, people without dogs
and even people walking dogs on-leash to use the path safely.
I'm interested in other thoughts.
Cheers,
Michele
with Strummer (standard poodle)
Janet MacDonald
| Hi Lise, You make some excellent points as to why our dogs need an open, unfenced area in which to run and play. I agree with you 1,000 % and hope to see you at the meeting! --- On Sat, 2/6/10, WhippetGirl <li...@runwhippetrun.com> wrote: |
Tim
We at NEMBA are greatly anticipating this meeting on Monday as you all
are and look forward to seeing you all there.
If I may make a suggestion: We have found over the last 20 years that
infrastructural changes such as trail maintenance, and in some cases
redesign and rerouting etc., are all well and good. However, the issue
is also managing the resource AND its users. We have always used a
systematic approach to educating our users on the proper use of the
resource including things like conflict avoidance and etiquette.
Similarly, along with your discussion about fence/no fence, the Fells
Dog Group might want to consider putting together education and
outreach programming for obedience training or something along those
lines as an additional layer to your advocacy. It also goes without
saying, self monitoring is always more desirable than heavy handed
enforcement.
As someone who frequently rides with fellow riders that bring along
off-leash dogs, it is a wondrous thing to watch these beautiful
animals do their thing, yet be entirely within the control of their
masters, especially for the sake of safety for both the dogs and the
riders. Conversely, it is infuriating to get chased down and bitten on
the ankle while riding in the vicinity of uncontrolled dogs.
Just my $0.02 - hope its not an imposition.
-Tim
GBNEMBA, Fells Coordinator
DogOwnerWhoVotes
opinion, but a constructive suggestion. We all look forward to
speaking with you and the GB NEMBA folks on Monday night!
David
> ...
>
> read more »
s1702
On Feb 6, 11:28 am, Tim <te.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> As someone who frequently rides with fellow riders that bring along
> off-leash dogs, it is a wondrous thing to watch these beautiful
> animals do their thing, yet be entirely within the control of their
> masters, especially for the sake of safety for both the dogs and the
> riders. Conversely, it is infuriating to get chased down and bitten on
> the ankle while riding in the vicinity of uncontrolled dogs.
I can understand that, trail riding is great when people are
responsible, but then I hate it when I stub my toes and trip on roots
and rocks that have been exposed by mountain bikers riding when the
trails are too muddy for it. Or when trails that have been narrow
footpaths for 20 years become 10 feet wide in a couple summers from
irresponsible riders. Or being forced to jump off the trail deep in
the woods when a group of irresponsible bikers blows by at 20 miles
per hour.
Michele Biscoe
I'm sorry that you have had bad experiences with irresponsible bikers
and irresponsible dog owners, respectively. I relate, because I, too,
have had bad experiences both with irresponsible bikers and with
irresponsible dog owners.
I don't think that Scott is the kind of person who would let his dog
chase down a biker and bite her or his ankle. I don't think that Tim
is the kind of person who would approach other people on the trails at
20 mph.
I think it's safe to say that within the larger communities of
mountain bikers and of cog owners, the individuals who are active in
groups that promote community and responsibility, like NEMBA and
FellsDOG, are not the problem. We all want the same thing: We want
to find a way that everyone can enjoy public open space at Sheepfold.
NEMBA's outreach and education among their constituents can serve as a
model for us as we transition to safe and legal options for off-leash
recreation in the Fells. Other dog-owner groups have prepared
literature and instituted programs to improve the experience for all
park users in parks where dogs are permitted off-leash. I hope that
many people in this discussion group will be interested in working
together on education and outreach programming so that we can all
Share the Fells!
Cheers,
Michele