Letter: FellsDOG Rep Chides Legislators Over Fells Plan

Editor's note: The author of this letter, Michele Biscoe, provided a copy to Melrose Patch for publication.

TO:

• Katherine Clark, State Senator, Middlesex and Essex
• Paul A. Brodeur, State Representative, 32nd Middlesex District
• Paul J. Donato, State Representative, 35th Middlesex District
• Christopher Fallon, State Representative, 33rd Middlesex District
• Sean Garballey, State Representative, 23rd Middlesex District
• Stephen Smith, State Representative, 28th Middlesex District

Honorable Legislators,

I am writing this open letter with regard to your letter to Edward M. Lambert,
Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), dated
November 8, 2011. I first learned about your letter on December 2, when it was
mentioned at the DCR Stewardship Council meeting in the public comments submitted by Mike Ryan, Executive Director of the Friends of the Middlesex Fells.

On behalf of the Fells Dog Owner Group (FellsDOG) and everyone who visits the Middlesex Fells trail system with off-leash dogs and submitted comments on the draft Resource Management Plan (RMP), I am disappointed in you. We are disappointed that, at the eleventh hour, you interposed yourselves into the process for the RMP without doing due diligence on the facts presented in the RMP and the positions of all stakeholder groups.

Four things in particular surprise me about your response:

1) As democratically elected representatives of the people, you issued your comments on the RMP clandestinely, rather than publicly through the DCR’s public comment process;

2) Whereas your comments on the RMP were known to at least one of the Fells
stakeholder groups, the Friends of the Fells, they were a complete surprise to at least two other stakeholder groups representing the general public: FellsDOG and the Greater Boston Chapter of the New England Mountain Biking Association (GBNEMBA);

3) It is well known that there is disagreement among the stakeholder groups—you refer to it yourselves in your letter—yet you neglected to reach out to all the stakeholder groups to understand the different facets of the issue before making a recommendation; and

4) Despite the fact that many people who have participated in the public process for the RMP feel that the process was thoroughly and well handled, you impose upon the DCR at the eleventh hour to condemn the Plan and, by extension, the good faith efforts not only on the part of the DCR but also those of your constituents who participated in its preparation.

In your letter you write, “While stakeholders have several disagreements over the specifics of the RMP, all agree that the DCR needs to strengthen its ability to enforce existing rules and policies.”

Many of us, in fact, do NOT agree on this point.

Indeed, if you were to read the more than 278 public comments submitted on the draft Plan you would find that, according to the counts that the DCR published in the final RMP (Appendix B.4), fewer than 45 letters explicitly recommend that the DCR fund enforcement of the plan before expanding recreational accommodations.

Throughout the public process, the Fells Dog Owner Group has recommended that the DCR include in the RMP legal accommodations for people to continue to enjoy the official trails system in the Fells with off-leash dogs. (It goes without saying that we encourage people to clean up after their pets in the Fells, and we support regulations regarding picking up and properly disposing of dog waste in the Fells and in general.)

According to the RMP, "based on DCR trailhead counts at the Fells itself, we have
approximately one dog for every two people visiting the reservation" (62), and
"approximately 85% of dogs are off leash at the Fells" (64). These are residents of Malden, Medford, Melrose, Stoneham, Winchester and neighboring communities who have been enjoying the trails of the Middlesex Fells with their pets off-leash, albeit in non-compliance with the rules, for generations. Changing the rules to allow our families to have our pets off-leash on the trails will not result in “expanded” or “increased” use. It will bring the rules into accord with longstanding customary use.

On the contrary, enforcing existing unobserved regulations will have a real and negative impact. Enforcement of the leash regulation on the trails will drive recreation off the trails, and one thing upon which we all DO agree that off trail is where we do not want recreation to be.

The findings on the ground in the Fells are that the real impacts of generations of
visitors with off-leash dogs on the trails are negligible to none.

According to the section in the RMP on "Recreation with Dogs."

• "twenty-seven species of birds identified as 'Species in Greatest Need of
Conservation' have been documented at the Fells. Off-leash dogs at the Fells MAY disrupt feeding and forging behaviors for some of the species more than dogs on leash or humans alone. Nesting behaviors of ground-nesting birds MAY be particularly susceptible to off-leash dogs. Four of the bird species in 'Greatest Need of Conservation' MAY be breeding at the Fells, and two of these are ground-nesting: American woodcock and eastern towhee."

• "Dogs are UNLIKELY to significantly disturb the two reptiles identified as 'Species in Greatest Need of Conservation'."

• "Direct water quality impacts have NOT been detected at the Fells."

• "With the exception of potential disturbance to vernal pools that serve as habitat for the American clam shrimp, off-leash dogs are UNLIKELY to have a significant impact on any of the other state-listed species or watch-listed plants at the Fells" (62 emphasis added).

On the issue of vernal pools, I should note that FellsDOG is in agreement with the other stakeholder groups supporting closing or rerouting trails near vernal pools, enabling visitors to experience, but not to disturb, them.

The reason that the high usage by people with off-leash dogs on the trails has little impact on the natural resource is precisely that people with off-leash dogs are ON THE TRAILS. According to the RMP, "on well-established trails, even large increases in use will result in minimal increases in impact" (49-50).

Moreover, in the public comments opposition to off-leash dogs on the trails is not strong. Only about 45 letters “do not support off-leash dogs on the trails”. Only about 20 letters explicitly “support enforcement and compliance of dog owners” (this presumably includes compliance with both leash and “pooper-scooper” regulations).

On the contrary, almost 70 letters support off-leash on-trail, or almost one-and-a-half times as many letters as oppose it.

It is, therefore, highly perplexing, from the perspective of dog owners who have
participated in the public process for the Middlesex Fells Reservation Resource Management Plan, that our democratically elected representatives would take a position opposed to our own without discussing the issues and our interests with us.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the Middlesex Fells Reservation and the recreational interests of dog owners with you.

Sincerely,
Michele Biscoe
Preston Road, Somerville