From City Councilor Craig Kelley.

Folks:

I took close to 8 pages of notes from the 26 April Ordinance committee. I'd be happy to copy them and mail them to anyone who thinks they can read my writing, but for those who don't want to take that route, here is a rough summary of what happened.

1. The Councilors were pretty much all at the hearing and all seemed to be paying attention. That's not very common for an Ordinance Committee hearing (some might say, in fact, that it's not common for anything), so it's an indication that we don't consider off-leash areas a small issue. And dog owners were very thankful for what they have at Fresh Pond, to include the swimming area. For many dog owners, it's part of something very special in Cambridge.

2. It seems fairly clear that the arguments for limiting dog access in order to preserve water quality, whether it be from dog feces or from erosion, don't go very far. It was also clear that getting data about users of Fresh Pond would be difficult and possibly biased, as who do you ask what questions of? And if you don't like dogs, odds are fairly good you don't spend as much time at Fresh Pond as someone who does like dogs, or at least doesn't mind them. And how much money and time do we want to spend gathering data? And will we expand restrictions to joggers and kids and anyone else?

3. Rich Rossi, Deputy City Manager, responded to concerns from the Council and from the public about lack of demonstrated data to support restrictions by saying that he didn't view it as a data argument but more as a question of balancing rights and desires of various Fresh Pond users. For example, what about people who want to picnic or read a book without worrying about having dogs nearby? And not all dogs are nice dogs and not all dog owners are responsible. In general, the people involved in the Fresh Pond Advisory Committee or the Water Board or the Master Plan mostly noted the need to balance uses but, at the hearing, did not come up with specific data to support dog use restrictions. They noted that they had a long and varied history of dog ownership and that there was not an 'anti-dog' agenda in play.

4. The Water Department said that they had put a lot of work into reseeding the 'dog bowl' and that it would be shame if excessive use turned it back into a muddy area. No one could explain, though, what would happen if the City invested in maintaining areas like the bowl, which have a lot of dog use, with constant reseeding efforts and so forth. Like maintaining sports fields, an active dog area will need work periodically to keep the dogs, and their owners, from wearing it out.

5. There was concern that, even if supportable, the medallion program as promoted wouldn't work. How will owners keep dogs on the trails, for example, and off of the mowed grassy areas? As I understood Mr. Rossi, dogs would continue to be allowed in the woods and on paths, to include a new ridge path. If there's one thing dogs love to do, it's roll around on grass and keeping them off of it would, effectively, require leashes on much of the reservation. How would it be enforced, and by whom?

6. There was concern that the word "romp" as used in the regulations was not descriptive enough and that the Ranger was overly harsh in citing owners for dogs who went onto the grass.

7. It was clear from comments about Fresh Pond and Fort Washington and Pacific Street that the areas where dogs are allowed off leash are treasured and that we need more of them. At the same time, Mr. Rossi was clear in his, and by extension the city's, lack of desire to push a trial run of shared space at local neighborhood parks, where off-leash times might be tested at specific parts of the day. This issue, of shared space, is not going to be an easy one to promote.

8. It is also clear that, given the expense of land in Cambridge, finding more designated off-leash parks is going to be tough. Apparently one can have dogs off-leash on DCR property, but without fences many owners aren't willing to give those lands a try. And DCR is apparently unwilling to let us put fences up on their land. There was some talk of finding off-leash space at specific areas of the Reservation, such as the Huron/Fresh Pond intersection, but no ideal places were discussed and the attendees expressed concern about losing overall access.

9. Dog owners expressed concerns that the homeless population, and the stuff they left behind, made them feel both unsafe and uncomfortable at Pacific Street and therefore it wasn't getting the use originally anticipated.

10. Dog owners noted that better maintenance at Fort Washington, to perhaps include benches for dog owners or a path to keep them off the grass and rotating reseeding efforts, could help keep it from getting, or appearing, overused.

11. According to the head of the Water Board, there seems to be (as I read my notes) a state regulatory program that governs land within 100' of the reservoir. It wasn't clear how this regulatory program affected any programs or would-be programs at Fresh Pond.

12. There was some discussion about how many off-leash dogs a walker could handle. Apparently there is concern that walking services are using Fort Washington with many, many dogs at once and are not able to adequately supervise them. Mark McCabe thought that three dogs off-leash was probably the most a person could reasonably supervise.

13. At the end of the day, it seems that the City Manager has the final authority over the Reservation. While the City Council passes ordinances, such as the off-leash rules, the Manager has actual control over the reservation and he could, in theory, institute a regulatory program on his own there.

14. While the Medallion Program is partly based on the idea of keeping dogs from other towns from being off-leash in the Reservation, there was concern that other towns could do the same to us with their non-state resources, be it skate parks or dog runs. Plus people we concerned about the negative impact on relationships that leash/no leash differences would have.

There was more said, but most of it revolved around the repeating issues of balanced use and defensible regulations. With no answers in immediate sight, we wound up keeping the issue in Committee. I don't know when the next hearing will be, but will try to let all of you when I find out. In the interim, you may want to make sure that the Council knows your thoughts by emailing Council@Cambridgemag.gov. The Manager may be emailed at Rhealy@Cambridgema.gov.

I suspect that, in the end, whatever we decide will be based as much on politics as it is on defensible facts.