Feinberg: Dog regs could be a lot worse
By Neil Feinberg/ CNC COlumnist
Thursday, June 23, 2005
In an anti-climactic moment during last Wednesday's meeting, the Conservation Commission voted to approve its new dog-walking regulations for Mt. Misery. Alas, no longer will the Mt. Misery area serve as a doggie tourist destination.
First promulgated last March without benefit of a hearing, the regulations were rescinded at Town Meeting to avoid a protracted debate that the commission wasn't sure it could win. However, subsequent hearings gave the commission ample opportunity to ignore the entreaties of dog walkers from Lincoln and the surrounding communities.
The new rules are strict, but the Conservation Commission could have gone further. For instance, dogs could have been officially banned, but they weren't. Doggie diapers and muzzles could have been required, and the commission could have demanded that leashes be attached to the owners' wrists with handcuffs, but they didn't. And paper towels could have been required to blot doggie urine off of the tree trunks, but apparently none of these ideas were approved. (Gee, I hope I haven't planted any seeds in the commission members' minds...)
Let's take a look at some of the other ways the new rules could have been made tougher:
The first regulation mandates that dog owners pick up their dogs' feces and deposit them in the designated barrels. If I'm the town employee responsible for emptying the trash barrels at Mt. Misery, I'm going to want to renegotiate that contract and add in some extra pay for this additional chore. Perhaps an alternative disposal method would be to allow dog walkers to bring their own shovels, dig a little hole and bury the waste.
In order to encourage compliance, plastic bags will be provided for those dog walkers who forget to bring their own. But those dispensers may be quite a distance from where the dog does its business. And what if the dispenser is empty or the walker forgets to bring a bag? Shouldn't the commission have been more explicit? Is kicking the stuff off the trail enough? Perhaps tongs could also be provided. I think that's a loophole the commission will want to close.
The second regulation bans swimming in all but two areas, one of them being the mercury-laced Sudbury River. Dogs swimming there can have their temperatures taken at the same time. Here the commission clearly slipped up.
It could have strategically banned dogs from all trails leading to these swimming areas, requiring dog walkers to carry their dogs to the waterfront. Let's face it, leisurely dog walking is not a great form of exercise. However, having to lug your dog a quarter-mile or more would not only be good for the Mt. Misery environment, it would provide a great cardiovascular workout.
Also, the commission wasn't explicit about whether leashes could be removed while the dog is swimming. Verbiage such as "dog owners are required to hold on to the leash while the dog is swimming, even if that means getting soaked" could be added to the regs to clear that up.
The last two sections cover the new leash regulations. Beginning July 5, leashes will be obligatory within several hundred feet of the Route 117 and the Old Concord Road parking areas, in the agricultural field area, along the main trail, the trail that goes over Mt. Misery, and the trails around two of the ponds. Off-leash trails include those leading to Concord. Once out of Lincoln, dog owners will be free to do what they want. Hmm, perhaps that's the message these onerous regulations are meant to send.
Over the last few years, dog walkers have created a friendly community at Mt. Misery, where their doggies could roam off-leash, allowing everyone to feel safe enough to walk in that secluded, forested area. Now, that's been taken from them.
The Conservation Commission requests that dog walkers follow its regulations and encourage others to do so. In fact, all that may have been accomplished with these nit-picky rules is the genesis of a community of scofflaws.
Neil Feinberg is a Lincoln resident and a regular columnist for the Lincoln Journal. | |
|
