Support the new dog leash rules at Callahan

[Chris_T]

At Callahan State Park in Framingham, the DCR has decided to restrict off-lead dogs to the Eagle Pond area and one other (TBD) area at the park as opposed to allowing dogs off-lead on all trails as in the past. Now a local dog walking business is behind a petition to over turn the new rules. This woman is using a public park to run her business and has photos of herself with 5 (presumably customer's) dogs off lead at Callhan on her comapny's website. Why should park users have to put up with off-lead dogs so that she can run her business?!

The MetroWest Daily News wrote about it here:
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=141782

There is a petition drive from the dog walkers trying to get the rules reversed here:
http://www.k9parks.com

and a counter-petition here.
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/callahan

Please pass the word and do what you can (even if it's just signing the counter-petition) to keep these new rules in place and improve the total park experience.

Thanks,

Chris

[Chris_T]

More about my experiences at Callahan, originally sent to the k9parks.com folks:

I am a Framingham resident and use Callahan on a regular basis. I've stopped bringing my silky terrier there because of the unleashed dogs. My dog is scared of other dogs and does not want to "say hi" to "friendly" off-leash dogs. I've had to pick up my dog and run on some occasions, ward off dogs with my leg on others. And the owners refuse to call their dogs off when asked, saying "he just wants to say hi". If you can't have control of your dog when off lead then the dog shouldn't be off lead. This is all not to mention the health hazard and general grossness of all the dog poop that isn't picked up.

It is more than reasonable to have 2 designated (large) areas of the park where dogs are allowed off-lead and dangerous to have dogs off-lead throughout the park. Many owners let the dogs go out of sight, which is dangerous for the dog and others (elderly walkers, cyclists, small children) who might be around the corner. While few dogs actually "attack" it is ridiculous to expect others to put up with having their child or dog scared and ruin their experience in the woods just so your dog can explore the trails on their own.

In short, your "preferred use" is keeping others from enjoying the park. Let's share.

[NembaHobbit]

Thanks for bringing this up :-)

The rules do stipulate that owners must have verbal control, but most do not. They may think they do, but you've seen how well that works.

I definitely agree and feel this is a reasonable compromise. Most of the dogs tend to stay congragated near the pond and that field anyway.

One important point that few people realize is that the wide flat fields near the Millwood parking lot and earthen dam are an essential and increasingly rare nesting habitat for certain endangered birds. I don't remember exactly which species, this was from a Callahan meeting I attended years ago discussing shared use and trying to mediate disputes between different user groups. Obviously dogs (or anyone) roaming freely in that area is a major disruption to that habitat.

Anne Shepard
Blackstone Valley NEMBA

[C]

So I have a pure hunting dog that is trained to listen to multiple commands, blind retrieves and probably has a better intelligent level then most people. The dog has ridden everywhere with me. Up the ski lifts, through the NE kingdom and rides daily in Arcadia. Actually the dog rides more then me. Between friends taking the dog out for rides or the wife going by herself. The dog is better behaved then most riders I encounter. So I should punish this dog because of others who can't train their dogs. What about punishing some of the people I encounter in the woods who leave a trail of used goo packages, don't no how to pass and are just plain ignorant. Why can't we put a leash on those people?
People seem to forget the dog, horse, deer, moose, coyotes; etc came long before mountain bikers. So why shouldn't they also be entitled to the same freedom in there natural environment as we do.

This seems to be pure urban thinking. Why don't we kill all the animals in the forest so they won’t interfere with your riding?

[Chris_T]

So I have a pure hunting dog that is trained to listen to multiple commands, blind retrieves and probably has a better intelligent level then most people. The dog has ridden everywhere with me. Up the ski lifts, through the NE kingdom and rides daily in Arcadia. Actually the dog rides more then me. Between friends taking the dog out for rides or the wife going by herself. The dog is better behaved then most riders I encounter. So I should punish this dog because of others who can't train their dogs. What about punishing some of the people I encounter in the woods who leave a trail of used goo packages, don't no how to pass and are just plain ignorant. Why can't we put a leash on those people?
People seem to forget the dog, horse, deer, moose, coyotes; etc came long before mountain bikers. So why shouldn't they also be entitled to the same freedom in there natural environment as we do.

This seems to be pure urban thinking. Why don't we kill all the animals in the forest so they won’t interfere with your riding?

That's quite a leap in (il)logic there. Nobody's arguing that its the dogs' fault. If you read up the thread you'll see that I am a dog owner as well. I don't want my dog (or my kid, or me) harassed or injured by a dog whose owner hasn't bothered to put in the time to train it properly.

More on the subject:

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=142521

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=142451

[NembaHobbit]

C

I applaud the effort you've taken to properly train and socialize your dog. If more of the dog owners using this park had shown a similar degree of responsibility and respect for others, this wouldn't be an issue. Sadly it appears that a significant number of area dog owners do not recognize the negative effect their actions (or lack of action) can have on other trail users. The same can be said of any user group involved in a conflict. A few bad apples always spoil things for the silent, well-behaved majority. They're not bad people because they have dogs, they're simply irresponsible people who happen to have dogs. I agree with you that idiots come in all shapes & sizes ;-)

This is at least the second or third round of such disputes coming to a head in Callahan. There have been some really bad episodes in the past. Several years ago, a group of concerned trail users, including dog walkers, equestrians, mountain bikers (including Mark Lamkin and myself) got together with the DEM (now DCR) land manager to act as stewards for the park. The person sponsoring the protest petition was an active member of this group. We established workable guidelines for shared trail use. We posted signs at the trailheads which informed park users of the rules in an equitable, non-confrontational manner. We did all the usual good things etc etc These efforts helped to ease tensions a great deal at that time. Since then, for whatever reason, probably budget cuts and the DEM to DCR transition, this committee has lapsed, as has its positive influence.

I suspect that some of the problems are from a new "generation" of users, who are coming into the area, unaware of the rules and the history of conflict and resolution that has occurred over the years. Some people just don't care, they are the real problem and they exist in all user groups.

If concerned users want to work together again, maybe we can make a change. I'd be willing to try. I don't know if the local dog owners have such a strong sense of community as mountain bikers and equestrians. They are a much broader demographic, which makes communicating with them as a whole more challenging.

The real question is: can the people who care exert enough influence to improve the behavior of those who are the source of the problem (now and in the future)? If the answer is no, then the rule change is a good decision.


One other point to bear in mind regarding Callahan:
This is a very popular, heavily used park in a dense suburban region. But from the management perspective, it has always been the poor stepchild of Cochituate State park w/r/t staffing and funding, mostly because of the liabilities associated with boating. When you consider these factors, the park manages itself better than one might expect. DCR probably chose the rule change as the most expedient way to address this problem with a non-existent staff & budget. If we want a better solution, we will have to work together.

Respectfully yours,

Anne Shepard

[sam]

Haven't mountain bikers learned how difficult it is to get and keep access to trails? I've been riding at Callahan for years and live in Framingham less than a mile from the park. I've heard far more complaints from neighbors about bikers than I have about dogs. I'm constantly defending bikers. I've never had a bad encounter with a dog there and I haven't met anyone else who has either. Why anyone would ever take a poorly socialized dog to a park such as Callahan and allow it to run free is beyond me. That means dogs that would intimidate people or dogs that are afraid of other dogs. A dog "just wanting to say hi" is a normal dog. One that does not hasn't been socialized properly. I ride at Callahan with my dog and am respectful of others on the trails. But I can't ride with my dog leashed as it wouldn't be safe for either of us. So I guess I have you to thank for championing shared access to multi-use trails. I must say that I too have had many run ins with poorly behaved bikers not yielding to uphill traffic or blasting past me when I'm walking a narrow trail. Perhaps we should try to correct our own problems before we go infringing upon others rights. There are very few parks that allow off leash dogs and it is shame that we mountain bikers are helping to impose trail restrictions on other users. Next up we should petition to disallow horses at Callahan. Their droppings are everywhere and they tear up the trails. Oh, and my dog is afraid of them and I'm a little distrustful myself. Does anyone else see this as a slippery slope? In my opinion, NEMBA shouldn't be a forum for advocating trail restrictions. If anything we should be pushing for shared access to more trails. I have more to say, but I will save it for now.

Thanks,

Sam

[catbbq]

I use to work in Framingham. One day after work, me and buddy headed out to Callahan for my first and only ride out there. We got into the park ok, but on the way out, my buddy actually ran over an unleashed dog. The dog was fine, and my friend was slightly upset, but not so much as the dog owner.

I have no problem with dogs off leashes, but when accidents happen, and they will, don't go getting high and mighty. If your unleashed dog gets run over by a bike, sorry but that is a risk you take. If your unleashed dog approaches me and makes me feel threatened just to say hi, then don't get upset when I kick it in the throat to protect myself.

[Chris_T]

In my opinion, NEMBA shouldn't be a forum for advocating trail restrictions. If anything we should be pushing for shared access to more trails. I have more to say, but I will save it for now.

Thanks,

Sam

I'm not advocating restrictions for restriction's sake but rather advocating for responsible shared trail use. There is a movement afoot to restart a Friends of Callahan organization and I encourage you to join. There are alternatives to making the entire park on-leash or the entire park off-leash. Let's explore these alternatives and other things that can improve the park experience for two- and four-legged users.

-C

P.S. a dog just wanting to say hi is normal, but if its going to be off lead in a public area it needs to (a) not jump on people unbidden and (b) respond to commands to go back to its owner. And, most importantly (and most rarely in my experience) the owner needs to be present and reponsive to requests to call off their animal. Too often I've been chased down the trail by a dog, stopped so its owner can come around the corner and call it off, and then chased again because the owner lets the dog chase me again.

[TheHare]

If your unleashed dog approaches me and makes me feel threatened just to say hi, then don't get upset when I kick it in the throat to protect myself.

All it takes is one bite... I was out running and got mine. Now I'm with Catbq. I love dogs and I am an owner, but now I run with a baton. The next time I am threatened, I will strike first.

[sam]

I'd suggest anger management classes to the folks that want to kick my dog in the throat. No wonder dogs are fearful of you. :mad: As a loving dog owner I would never strike a dog first - unless seriously threatened. And if you strike my dog I will be mad. Such behavior could create a fearful, and thus dangerous dog. If you run into her by accident that's another story -and most likely her fault. But I wont stand by while she threatens you (she wouldn't, but if she did she would get some stern discipline from me) and I will leash her or hold her if you are frightened by her.

This issue is personal for me since I regularly ride with my dog at Callahan. I understand the issues others have and I agree that there are problems, but restricting trail use is not the only solution and certainly (in my opinion) not the solution that NEMBA should endorse.

I'm all for recreating the Friends of Callahan group and would join in a heartbeat.

If you dont want to encounter many dogs at Callahan - or particularly the hordes of dog walkers and their packs of unleashed dogs - try parking in the Edmands or Broadmeadow lots. The best trails in Callahan are away -from the pond and Millwood lot anyway. I rarely see dogs, let alone people, on my rides so it can be done.

[recum_MTB]

Well, if people just used common sense and courtesy with their pets we would not have this problem. It is, in the first instance, the owners that are responsible for this and not the dogs. We have this same issue at the climbing crags, but I am for restricting access at the crags b/c it's more of a safety issue having dogs barking, running around unattended, rummaging through people's packs, urinating on climbing ropes (they do believe it or not), and just generally distracting climbers who need to be paying undivided attention to their climbing partners. At an open park I think it's a shame to have to impose such a restriction but I can understand why some folks are proponents of a ban -- as usual, a few irresponsible folks ruin it for everyone else. This is the story of every shared use issue that we confront today. Hmm, maybe I need to leash my 1 year old -- when he starts walking. Look on the bright side, we'll be less stressed someday when no activities whatsoever are permitted on public lands -- at least we'll have nothing to fight about then!

[priss]

Dogs are not people, not children or like children. Dogs are animals we keep as property to serve our selfish needs. If you have convinced yourself otherwise please don't expect everyone else to join in your delusion.

There are a lot of questions here and I got some answers you might think about.


So I have a pure hunting dog that is trained to listen to multiple commands, blind retrieves and probably has a better intelligent level then most people...
A well trained animal is a joy to own. It must have taken a lot of time and effort to condition his natural responses to serve your will. Weather by reward or punishment an animal can be trained but I would not call that intelligence, more like brainwashing.


So I should punish this dog because of others who can't train their dogs.
Maybe they are just letting the dogs be themselves. Not everyone wants a drone to do their bidding. If a leash is a punishment then "training" is too.


What about punishing some of the people I encounter in the woods... Why can't we put a leash on those people?
That’s easy, it’s because they are people. Dogs are property. We create laws to control the use of property, in order to safeguard the public. A leash law is not a law restricting your dog anymore then the speed limit is a law restricting your car. It's a use restriction. Your dog may pose no risk in a public place, and I may pose no risk at 70mph, but the law says the public does not have to face that risk regardless.


People seem to forget the dog, horse, deer, moose, coyotes; etc came long before mountain bikers. So why shouldn't they also be entitled to the same freedom in there natural environment as we do.
I'm all for that. Let’s let all the dogs go and run free as nature intended. Except that wont work will it. Thousands of years of genetic breeding manipulation by humans intent on producing dogs that would serve their needs and do their bidding has created a species of animal nothing like nature intended. What you got there is a pet, fully dependent on human interaction for its survival.


This seems to be pure urban thinking. Why don't we kill all the animals in the forest so they won’t interfere with your riding?
Intelligent forest animals, like ones that have "a better intelligent level then most people", know enough to get out of the way long before something as big as a person on a bike comes along. In my experience that group includes everything except dogs.

And to the dog owners who are complaining about how they have to be punished because people don’t train their dogs. There are no laws that say people must train their dogs, so no one has a responsibility to do so. If there is a leash law and your dog is on a leash then you have met your responsibility. If you don’t have your dog on a leash, no matter how trained it is, you are the irresponsible one.

Kereina
Loves dogs, but been bit too many times

[radair]

..... but restricting trail use is not the only solution and certainly (in my opinion) not the solution that NEMBA should endorse...

Sam, please do not mistake the opinion of the original poster for being NEMBA policy. NEMBA has no policy regarding dogs or leash restrictions, period. The NEMBA forums are open to any registered user posting their opinions. What is posted here does not reflect NEMBA's position on these issues.

[Chris_T]

Sam, please do not mistake the opinion of the original poster for being NEMBA policy. NEMBA has no policy regarding dogs or leash restrictions, period. The NEMBA forums are open to any registered user posting their opinions. What is posted here does not reflect NEMBA's position on these issues.

Yes, as the OP let me be doubly clear that these are my opinions only, not NEMBA's. In fact, unless one of the powers that be says something to the contrary, NEMBA has NO position on these issues.

-Chris

[Tim]

This is certainly a contentious issue, and I agree with a lot of what has been said, on both sides - in particular, I think it sets the wrong tone for NEMBA to get involved in restricting access to any non-motorized use. I have ridden at Callahan many times in the early AM and encountered quite a few dog walkers, with nary a problem (I did encounter an aggressive mallard one time - had to turn around and take another trail, literally).

On the other hand, I have been bitten by dogs while running and hiking, and threatened many times by other dogs. I think we should put the owners, who don't train or control their pets, on a leash.

Tim

[catbbq]

That’s easy, it’s because they are people. Dogs are property. We create laws to control the use of property, in order to safeguard the public. A leash law is not a law restricting your dog anymore then the speed limit is a law restricting your car. It's a use restriction. Your dog may pose no risk in a public place, and I may pose no risk at 70mph, but the law says the public does not have to face that risk regardless.


70 is legal in some states.

[Chris_T]

The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) will hold a public meeting to discuss off-leash recreation at Callahan State Park, Tuesday evening, December 5, at 7:00 in the Lower Level Meeting Room in Framingham Town Hall, 150 Concord Street, Framingham, MA