To all the people who enjoy Mount Misery:

 

            I have read all the letters and materials on this web site (www.mtmisery.org) , and I would like to add my perspective.

 

            I enjoy bringing my 16-month-old Labrador Retriever (with emphasis on the Retriever portion) to Mount Misery on weekends.   When Marcus was a puppy, he used to frolic in the large field with other dogs.  Now that he is a little older, his is exclusively focused on retrieving tennis balls.  In order to tire him out, Marcus requires 2 to 3 hours of ball retrieval each day.  The large field is perfect for this purpose.  I can throw the tennis ball about 60 yards into the field using a Chuck-it ball-launcher designed for this purpose.  Marcus is particularly energized by the large field.

 

            Mount Misery also has some hilly areas, and I stand on the tops of the hills and throw the ball down the hill.  Marcus gets tired more quickly this way, which is a help to me. 

 

            From my perspective, clearly, a leash requirement would make it impossible for Marcus to do ball-retrieval, which is really the only type of exercise he does.   Mount Misery would cease to be a place that I could bring Marcus to.

 

            The thing that strikes me about the leash requirement, which is the reason that I have written, is that in my walks around Mt. Misery lately, every person I have met thinks the leash requirement is ridiculous.  It seems strange, doesn’t it?   The general opinion of literally every person I have met at Mt. Misery is that the dogs are not causing any damage at all.  One person made the point that the trails are wide merely because the trees were cut widely, and the path has just expanded to the width of the tree-cut.

 

            The new regulations are designed to do the following:

 

  1. Greatly reduce dangerous or unpleasant dog/dog and dog/person encounters.
  2. Protect animal species living or breeding in ponds and vernal pools.
  3. Prevent harassment of mammals and ground-nesting birds.
  4. Protect fragile plant communities
  5. Reduce erosion in the woods and on pond and river banks.
  6. Eliminate attacks by uncontrolled dogs on other dogs or on people.
  7. Greatly reduce the amount of dog feces on the Mt. Misery land.
  8. Allow trail users with a fear of unleashed dogs to again enjoy this special area.

 

If these are the goals, I would make the following answers, from my point of view:

 

  1. All the people I have met at Mt. Misery feel that the dogs have not caused any damage to the environment. (Points 2,3,4,5 above)
  2. I have not seen any unpleasant dog/person or dog/dog encounters in the year I have been coming to Mt. Misery.  If this is a problem, it is not a big problem. (Points 2 and 6 above)
  3. People are responsible for cleaning up their dog feces.  My impression is that Mt. Misery users are unusually conscientious and almost always clean up after their dogs.  Walking through Mt. Misery, I don’t see much if any feces. (Point 7 above)
  4. Regarding trail users with a fear of unleashed dogs, I can’t say too much.  I do know some people who were traumatized as children and have a fear of dogs.  I think this is a valid point.  If I had a fear of dogs, I probably would be in favor of leashing dogs. (Point 8 above)
  5. Finally, points 1, 6, 7, and 8 above are not valid reasons to enact a leash requirement in Mt. Misery.  If they were, there would be a leash law in all of Lincoln, which there is not.  The reasons there is no leash law is that dog owners are trusted by the town to control their dogs.  If owners are trusted to control their dogs in town, they certainly don’t need a leash law in a wild area, at least as far as points 1,6,7, and 8 above go.
  6. Even given all the running in the large field that Marcus does, the grass seems to grow to a very tall height over the course of the summer.  I would say this is evidence that in the field at least, the dogs are not causing irreparable damage.  Therefore, I do not see any reason to limit dogs from the large field.  It seems to me that a leash requirement in the field would only seek to ensure the privacy of the abutters, and doesn’t serve the conservation commissions stated goals 1-8 above at all.

 

 

I have heard several compromises discussed:  instituting a leash requirement during certain hours on only in the field, for instance.  I don’t see how either of these compromises serve to further the goals of the commission.

 

Again, I feel that points 1,6,7, and 8 are not legitimate concerns of the commission, since they are not pressing concerns for the town.  The remaining ecological arguments do not seem to me to have been conclusively proved.

 

Thanks for all your consideration and time.  I look forward to discussing these issues at the public hearing on Wednesday to see if I have missed something.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Harold Naparst