Article 28. Canine Control

Arlington Dog Owners Group (A-DOG) Supports the Substitute Motion presented by Michael Ruderman (TMM, Precinct 9), with provisions as summarized:

  • To change the 6 ft leash length limit for restraining a dog, enabling use of a leash with length not to exceed twenty (20) ft.
  • To allow dogs off leash in Town-owned open spaces between the hours of 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 to 9:00 pm., “provided the owner or keeper of the dog is present and attentive toward the dog and the dog is under effective control. Dogs must, however, be restrained by leash in proximity to a permitted sporting or other event.”

Statement of support:

The current leash bylaw in Arlington was established in the 1960’s. Based on the transcripts from its debate in Town Meeting, as well as on the wording (for example, its provisions for the Animal Control Officer to hold a dog for 10 days until the owner claims him), it was intended to address dogs roaming free without owner supervision, or “at large”. Few, if any, dogs roam “at large” in our town nowadays because dog owning practices have changed. The modern dog owner treats his dog more as a family member, and typically would not consider letting him roam unprotected. As the Arlington bylaw is currently enforced, it prevents dog owners from exercising and socializing their dogs off-leash, even if such activities occur under owner supervision and at times when few others are using the parks. A Green Dog Pilot Program is being developed, with community input, to provide off leash hours, as well as dedicated fenced dog parks, town-wide. While the original goal was to submit this program to Town Meeting this year, this submission has now been delayed, with a new goal of Town Meeting, 2009. While dog parks have been allowed in the bylaws since 2003, there are none yet available. Previous attempts to establish dog parks in Arlington (for example, a dog park proposed at Hill’s Hill in 2005) have been unsuccessful.

The purpose of this Substitute Motion is to make an incremental change to the current leash law enabling responsible dog owners to have some limited opportunity to legally exercise and socialize their dogs, while minimizing impact to the community. We recognize that the proposed schedule will not benefit all dog owners. It is expected that, should a more comprehensive Green Dog plan be adopted by Town Meeting in future years, its provisions would more broadly serve the community. However, until that time comes, this Substitute Motion will provide some relief to the current situation.

Some believe that no action, even an incremental one, should be taken on this issue until the Green Dog committee has completed its work. We respectfully disagree with this position. One year is quite a long time in the developmental life of a dog. Another year of inadequate opportunities for training and socialization can have only a negative impact on individual dogs. This delay also has a negative impact on Arlington dog owners, who are being asked to wait yet one more year before being allowed to legally conduct what is, for many, a favorite recreational activity. The need for legal off-leash recreational opportunities has been recognized by the town and officially discussed for at least 5 years, with no resolution. We believe that a substantive change is long overdue. Respectfully, we ask whether, for example, dedicated softball enthusiasts would tolerate having to suspend their games for an entire season, let alone several years, while details of, for example, a field reconstruction, were being worked out. They would not, nor should they be expected to do so. At the very least, they would likely seek some interim arrangement until the final, presumably perfectly renovated, site was ready. In this case, the Green Dog plan is being touted as representing the best overall solution to the dog/dogowner issue for Arlington. This may very well turn out to be true. But that doesn’t mean that a simpler, less perfect measure would not be of significant value in the interim.

In the Substitute Motion, the limited early morning and evening hours were selected so as to minimize off-leash activity when the parks are more heavily used, for example, by children. The requirement that the owner be present and attentive to the dog means that the law will not allow dogs running “at large” in the parks. The additional requirement that the owner have the dog under “effective control” prevents this law from applying to an untrained or out-of-control dog, even when owner-accompanied.

The Substitute Motion also seeks to amend the current specification of a 6 ft leash. The 6 ft limit prevents owners from using flexible, retractable leads or from teaching their dogs off-leash “recall” using modern obedience training methods, including those advising a training lead of 20 to 30 feet (Miller, Pat, 2001, The Power of Positive Dog Training). The Substitute Motion is intended to relieve this restriction. The proposed 20 feet is the same leash length that is specified by the American Kennel Club (AKC) in its “Canine Good Citizen” certification test (www.akc.org, CGC program).

The proposed changes apply to Town-owned parks and conservation lands only. Dogs would not be allowed off leash on other public property, such as streets and sidewalks or on private property without the property owner’s permission. In addition, bylaws against excessive noise and failure to clean up after ones dog would, of course, remain in force at all times.

In comparison, several local communities (Acton, Bedford, Burlington, Concord, Lexington, Lincoln, Sudbury, Wellesley, and Weston) have bylaws allowing dogs to be unleashed, under owner supervision and control, in public parks without restriction as to hours. Such bylaws refer to “effective command” or its equivalent as a requirement. Others (e.g. Cambridge, Boston, and Somerville) allow dogs to be unleashed in selected location(s), including dedicated dog parks (Boston, Somerville). Brookline has a “Green Dog” system whereby dogs are allowed off leash at certain hours in certain parks and has no dedicated dog parks.

5 thoughts on “Article 28. Canine Control

  1. My dog is Lady Windermere (Winder), a black and white Lurcher. My experience during her 14 years is that she has brought great joy to children and adults. People say she is beautiful especially when she dashes across a field reminding us of the Kentucky Derby thoroughbreds. Parents ask whether their child can pat her and they do. This joy is much more prevalent than the one-off dog incident involving a child.

    Animal rights and animal needs are more appreciated than ever. Winder is part border collie and we know they need to run every day. She is part greyhound and we know what they do. For Winder to not have a place to run would be an awful disregard of her needs. Many other breeds have similar needs that might evolve into a right to run.

    I hope these ideas are part of the Town Meeting discussion.

  2. Dear Dottie,
    Thanks very much for posting your beautiful comment. It made me think of my late dog Sara, a sweet black lab who lived her entire 15 years with so much love and pure joy. I hope to meet the lovely Lady Windermere someday.

    I am one member of the group that wrote the Substitute Motion, as well as the statement of support posted above. Unfortunately, while the benefits of dog ownership and the needs of dogs to run *were* mentioned by some at TM last Monday and in the previous session, the Substitute Motion was voted down. This was despite the introduction of amendments that corrected some oversights and brought the Motion closer to our original intent (e.g. an amendment written by School Committee member Joseph Curro to correct our misunderstanding that school-abutting properties are “Under the Control of the School Department”, as described by the part of the bylaws we deliberately did not seek to change.)

    It was clear from the TM experience that this is an extremely sensitive issue in Arlington, although we already knew that and had tried to address major concerns, as described in the above statement of support. Even our having added the stringent requirement that dog owners would be in violation if their dogs are not under “effective control” did not placate many concerned individuals.

    I hope very much that our Substitute Motion was voted down primarily by people who want to give the Green Dog committee the chance to do its work, and yet also agree that responsible dog owners have a valid right to some opportunities for off leash recreational activities with their dogs. Rather than by people who would seek to continue to deny us this right, and refuse to share the parks with us in this manner. Indeed, I know that people with the latter opinion do exist. But, I hope that they are in the minority. I guess we will learn the answer to that next year at Town Meeting.

    Meanwhile, if you haven’t joined A-DOG, please do. And, ask your friends who have dogs, or who don’t have them but appreciate the value of the canine-human bond, to do so as well. We need to support one another, to advocate for our rights, and also to work with others in the community to address our differences as constructively as possible. And, personally, I wish the Green Dog committee great success. They are putting so much work into this program, and have had many concerns and perspectives to balance and I appreciate their extraordinary commitment to this issue. Particularly that of Leslie Mayer, my own TM precinct colleague and the dedicated, conscientious chair of our Parks and Recreation Commission.
    Sincerely,
    Sue

  3. What happened to Article 29, the draconian proposal to ban dogs entirely from Menotomy Rocks park? Was there a lot of support for it? Was there any debate?

  4. Dear Ken,
    On Article 29, Selectmen’s recommended vote of “no action” was voted favorably by TM and there was no debate. One proponent had planned to submit a resolution (which, as I understand it, unlike a bylaw change, is a nonbinding statement of support for an issue or position). However, he was out of town, so not available to appear that night. One TMM spoke asking that debate be postponed to give him a chance to present the resolution, but TM voted the postponement down. This means that, since there was no substitute motion, the only option up for vote was the “no action” motion of the Selectmen.

    Please, if anybody has a different answer to this, or a correction, feel free to chime in. It is my best recollection, but I didn’t watch the session again on TV.

    Sue

  5. If you don’t have the time or inclination to watch the TM broadcasts on cable, Dan Dunn’s blog is a good place to get whatever info you need.

    It looks like his notes on session 5 match Sue’s recollection.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *