July 7, 2007

Dear Candidate:

Grateful Dogs Off Leash Association is doing a Candidate Survey, which will get posted on our website (www.Gratefuldogs.org) as part of our education mission.  We invite you along with all city council and mayoral candidates to please answer 4 questions.  For questions not answered, we will insert the statement, “Candidate did not respond.”

Grateful Dogs Off Leash Association is dedicated to responsible dog guardianship and promoting off leash areas.  We have worked with City Parks and City Council for 6 years to have our dogs off leash in public areas as a form of legitimate recreation.

One third of the Bellingham population has one or more dogs.  People of all abilities at the minimum walk their dogs daily or take them to off leash areas.  These people are legitimate recreation users, and exercising their dogs is their recreation.  Right now Bellingham has one fenced off leash area at Lake Padden.  Only one more fenced off leash area is planned for the entire city, which will be at Squalicum Fields Park site at the north side of town.   That won’t be developed for 5 years.  Meanwhile, City Parks is reducing off leash areas, which is leading to over-use of existing areas.  We need more off leash areas now.

A brief history of Grateful Dogs is attached.

The survey questions are:

1. As a leader within the community, what is your experience with dealing with a plurality of public need for space and recreation?:  i.e, parks and dog parks, trails or beaches

2. How do you propose to fulfill the obligation the city has to accommodate the multiplicity of needs including the community of dog owners who take their recreation with their dog companions?

3. What have you done to support a city wide initiative to promote wider public recreational use of our parks and the immediate need of off leash areas in the city? 

4. What future plans do you have to provide off leash areas to meet the needs of this recreation user group?  What does your timeline look like?  How would you include the help of the Grateful Dogs Organization?

Please respond by August 10, 2007.  We thank your for your time and thoughtfulness to answer the questions.

Sincerely,

Anara Thomas, President of Grateful Dogs Organization

Response from Damon J. Gray

1. To date, my leadership has been in areas other than public recreation.  I have worked primarily with the underserved, elderly, homeless and youth, as well as performed search and rescue operations for downed aircraft and missing persons, e.g. lost hikers.

2. With roughly one third of the Bellingham population owning dogs, the need is substantial.  The City currently manages ten off leash areas. While that may seem like a sufficient number, it is well to point out that not all of these are full-time, and many of them are trails.  It is my opinion that a dog needs a place to run free and hard, and not just in a straight line. With the abundance of open space in Bellingham, it seems reasonable to dedicate some of this space for use by dog owners to let their dogs run free, and it also seems reasonable to have this space in areas that are easily accessible to the dog owning population.

3. I've spoken with a number of dog owners about the need, and the challenges they face, with a view to running for City Council.  Gathering such information is a significant first step toward understanding the need and formulating an effective solution.  I look forward to serving on the council so that I can take the lead in addressing this important need.

4. As an organization representing the primary users of such space, Grateful Dogs will need to be actively involved as an advisor in the process of identifying and designating off-leash areas.  We should begin as soon as possible to develop a detailed plan for identifying, acquiring, designating and managing off-leash areas, preferably within easy access of all residential areas of the city.  But until the "failure to communicate" syndrome is dealt with, as you have documented in your organization's history, we aren't going to make much headway.  So the first step is to convene meetings between council members, parks board, mayor's office, and representatives of interest groups like yours, to establish good
communications, and a protocol for moving forward to adequately address the issue within the scope of our available resources. 

1.  
- I've served two terms on the Greenways Advisory Board working to increase our acreage for parks, recreation, trails and open spaces.

- I was an architect serving on the committee that brought the Greenways
Three Levy to the City Council and once it was on the ballot I worked
tirelessly to get it pass which happened with an over whelming majority of
our electorate.

- I also served on the Steering committee that, with a consultant wrote the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan, now rolled into the ComprehensivePlan as chapter 7.

- I now serve in my fifth year on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and served several months on a special committee
that worked with the Grateful Dogs Assoc. to improve our off leash areas at Lake Padden and to help secure the sight at Squalicum Creek Park (not Squalicum Fields park) as described in this request.

- Members of the parks board have met several times and walked several potential sites for more off leash areas such as Bloedel and an area near the Bay View cemetery and we will keep working to resolve this issue for alldog owners.

2. The Parks and Recreation department strives to meet as many needs for recreation, trail walking, and open space as well as a wide variety of recreation needs of every kind as is possible given the funds, resources and space available. Our trails are heavily used and non-dog owners have rights to be able to walk on our trials without having to deal with out of control dogs. Leash laws, when observed are a good method of
keeping our dogs safe and in control so they don't make others have a negative experience in our parks. We have three medium sized dogs and have had bad experiences in the off leash enclosure at Lake Padden and will not bring out dogs there again. 

We have a fenced back yard and I take my Australian Shepherd to a field we rent where we do off leash running and agility and tracking training. We confine our off leash use to that facility and on our dead end street where we only have two neighbors that both count our dogs as their friends.
 
3. I answered this question in my response to question one. As a Parks Board member I've put in many hours on behalf of dog owners, myself included. You didn't mention Bloedel Park and I swim my dogs there off leash several mornings a week along with scores of other local dog owners.

4. I will continue, as a Parks board member to work to find facilities that are suitable for dog owners to use that are safe and provide big muscle exercise without risk of our dogs jumping on or bothering other parks and trail users.

Since I'm a candidate for City Council and the Primary Ballots are out but not returned, I'm not sure what my timeline is. I may, in a few months, have to resign from the Parks board. I would suggest that one or more of your members apply to serve on the Parks Board. I'm sure the group would welcome that participation as they continue to work to resolve this need. 

I think a member or your group serving on the Parks board would be a big help and would broaden your views of the broad range of services our parks department provides to all citizens.  If I become a member of the City Council as I expect and hope, then I'm always open to hearing about citizen and interest group concerns and as a Council member will have the opportunity to vote on key issues like when the off leash part of Squalicum Creek park will be built. I've not heard that the date has been pushed back to five years out. I will ask about that date because I thought that part of the park was included in phase two which I don't believe is five years out.... 

Response from Doug Karlberg

1. I don't think the government should be in the  business of judging people and their pursuits, as  long as their pursuits are legal. We need to keep in  mind that some pursuits do effect others. Putting  government in charge of being everyone's nanny or  parent does a disservice to all those good people  who are out there, that can for the most part, find  plenty of novel solutions to their problems.  Sometimes there is a bad apple that cannot seem to  get along with their neighbors, and government can  play an effective role in carefully, but forcefully,  weeding out the bad apples.    

People who have dogs are not some sort of scourge,  and I have met hundreds of dogs that are good  neighbours. Dog owners who clean up after their dogs  and have taken the time to make sure that their dogs  are well behaved, are simply great neighbours. These  owners and their pooches add something positive to  our community. Finding places for dogs to be off  lease and run is simply being kind to animals, and  it is reasonable to request that government make  sure that there are opportunities available in all  locals. Government should keep in mind this simple  principal, that the fewer places for dogs to run,  the more crowded these places will be. More room is  better for all.    

2. I wouldn't spend a bunch of the taxpayers money  chasing stray dogs. I would insist that dog areas  are available to all locals, or deficiencies noted  and flagged for new areas to be set aside in the  near future. The easiest way to do this is to simply  ask you where these areas are needed and ask for  your suggestions. If you get together with your  neighbors and come up with a majority of the  neighbors that want an area set aside for dogs, I  can't see a reason that I would not support  wholeheartedly your proposal. Nobody knows the needs  of dog owners or their neighbourhoods better than  the people who live there.    

The City should focus on dangerous dogs, health  conditions around playing children, and nuisance  dogs and their nuisance owners, which are a very  small percentage of dog owners. These people make it  hard for all of the responsible dog owners. Weeding  out out the problems rather than blaming all dog  owners for the misbehaviour of a few, will send a  strong message to all. Responsible behavior is great  and encouraged, bad behavior is not.    

3. The truth is I have not done anything towards this  issue; Of course I am a fisherman and not Mayor;  Yet.     

4.  Dogs provide companionship to their owners and even  neighbours, especially children. I know all my  neighbours dogs personally. Dogs also provide  security, which makes some folks more comfortable,  especially women. Dogs are are beneficial to our  community. Taking care of our dogs is a legitimate  concern, and a little common sense could cure some  of these problems.    

Organizations such GDO (Grateful Dogs Organization)  are a terrific time and money saver for the  taxpayers generally. Organizations which take on  these issues and bring good faith solutions forward  to government, don't charge the taxpayers a single  dime. A great service at great price!    

PS: My spell checker seems to be stuck on Canadian  spellings. I am not Canadian. My apologies to all  Canadians.    

As a child we raised hunting dogs, in town no less.  We eventually moved to the county which was better  place to raise dogs, but hunting dogs being what  they are, did get into the neighbors chicken coop a  couple of times. We paid for the chickens, and  apologized profusely to our neighbor. I am certain  that our neighbor exaggerated the value of his  chickens, and profited handsomely. The dogs were  restricted and punished. Their fowl eating habits  improved dramatically, and all of this without any  intervention by the government. Of course this will  not work for all of societies problems, but it will  certainly work for some of them.

Response from Dan McShane

1. As a County Council member, I considered a large  number of land acquisitions  for park purposes and in that process considered the  use of the land as park  land.    

I have also worked as consultant on a variety of  trail projects for cities  throughout Puget Sound. One particular beach issue I  worked on in regards to  dogs was coming up with approach to prevent erosion  from dogs and kids on a  highly erodible steep slope adjacent to a beach. WE  came up with a program  of signage and plantings that discouraged walking on  the slope adjacent o  the beach.      

2. This is clearly an issue that I would ask the Parks  Board and Council to  consider during the update of the City's Park Plan  during 2008. It should be  a robust discussion with as many options considered  as possible.      

3. It is not an issue I have been actively engaged in.  I will say though that I  am a dog owner and will bring the perspective of  owning a running dog to the  issue. The past few years I have been fortunate in  that I take our dog in  the field with me doing geology work. That  opportunity will come to an end  when I am mayor.      

4. As noted above, the City is already planning an  update to the City Parks  plan. Your group is clearly well positioned to have  significant input on  this issue. I hope to manage a very inclusive  process that will fully vet  all ideas on this problem and look forward to being  of assistance in helping  all that are interested in being able to be fully  engaged in the public  process. 

Response from Don Keenan

1. While working extensively on the Beyond Greenways Levy in 1997 and as a coordinator of last year’s Greenways III Levy I have had experience looking for a balance among the many needs and wants of the community in the area of open space, parks and trails. I have also been involved in multiple-use issues in the Little Squalicum beach area. People throughout Bellingham have very definite and sometimes conflicting views about how they want our public spaces configured and used. One of the difficult tasks public officials face is balancing these conflicting options with limited public resources. In the Parks arena, the Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PRO) plan is the document which delineates how those resources will be allocated. During the next year the PRO plan will be updated, providing opportunities for the public to shape the content of the plan for the coming years. 

2. I appreciate and understand the important role dogs and other pets play in our lives, in terms of both emotional and physical health. I’d like also to acknowledge the efforts your Grateful Dogs association has made to work with the city since 1999 to provide off-leash areas for recreating with your pets. In May I received correspondence from and then had a chance to meet extensively with a Grateful Dogs member and got a detailed understanding of your group’s priorities and the history of your interactions with the Parks and Recreation Department. That meeting, along with the Chronology of Grateful Dogs you included as an attachment to your email, spells out clearly your frustration in reaching your goal of having more off-leash areas in various parts of the city.

I support a balanced approach to accommodating dogs and their owners on trails and in public open space. Off-leash dog areas provide a social setting in which people and their dogs can gather, interact and get exercise. This has positive effects for both dogs and dog owners. Well-exercised and socialized dogs are better neighbors who are less likely to create a nuisance. Their presence in the park along with their owners also may help deter crime. Additionally, I believe that reasonable accommodation may results in higher levels of compliance with relevant laws by dog owners. Balancing the needs of all users of our park and trail system is certainly not easy. Dog off-leash areas generally require water service, parking, fencing and maintenance, and are made successful in some cities (such as Edmonds and Seattle) through active partnerships with off-leash groups such as Grateful Dogs. In addition to off-leash park areas, we are fortunate to have one of the most extensive park and trail systems in the country, most of which can be accessed by dogs on leash, with some secondary trails allowing dogs off leash. I hope we will have lots of public participation by all users when we update the PRO Plan later in 2007-2008.

3. In the last two years I have spent a considerable amount of time working to insure that the Bellingham community continues its tradition of wonderful parks, trails and open space. First, I worked as a coordinator of the Greenways III levy to assure $44 million additional for park related purposes over the next ten years. Then I advocated for an additional Greenways acquisition position for the Parks Department and for city acquisition of a substantial park property in the underserved far north section of Bellingham. I am not aware of the specific citywide initiative that you describe in this question.

4.  If elected mayor I would certainly implement the off-leash area proposed for Squalicum Creek Park. Additionally, I would direct the Parks Department to explore opportunities for developing off-leash areas in underserved sections of the city. Early 2008 would be an ideal time to explore these options, since the Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan will be updated by the end of 2008. I suggest that the Grateful Dogs Association members, along with other interested Bellingham residents, actively engage in the PRO plan update process. Also, I would be pleased to discuss with Grateful Dogs members how we can work together to provide meaningful dog and owner recreation opportunities while being mindful of the limits on the City’s finances in relation to competing needs for funding.

Response from Michael Lilliquist

1. As a dog owner, I too am frustrated by the difficulty in finding good    places to let our dogs run free.  I believe that dog owners are a  valid constituency with a reasonable claim to be  accommodated  alongside other special use groups.  Tax payer money  is a limited  resource, and I think that dog owners must keep  their requests  reasonable and in proportion; I believe that  Grateful Dogs has done just that.

2. I must say I was deeply disappointed to read the  narrative of    2003-2005 efforts to enlist the City in a  partnership to provide more    facilities for dog owners.  I can find no justification for such a course of events, and I would urge the Mayor to  provide a more coordinated and consistent direction from Parks  Dept., and a more serious commitment to the issue.       

3. I have not been an office holder.     

4. I think we need include off-leash areas as an  element in our overall    parks planning process. As a general rule, I believe  that our government should serve our best public interests  and follow the will of the people.  One of the best ways to determine  the public's interests and intentions is through open public  processes, coordinated by the appropriate municipal officials.  If the  public wants to provide off-leash areas - and I believe that we do -  then that should be part of the mission of our municipal Parks  program. 

Response from Louise Bjornson

1.  One of the special things we love about Bellingham is our wonderful park system.  As a Council person, and as a private citizen, I have worked for a variety of facilities for the variety of users of our park system.  I voted for the present dog off leash area in Lake Padden Park and went to the Grand Opening.  It was fun to see all the dogs and their owners enjoying the area.

2.  Our family takes our dogs for walks around the neighborhood.  When on a leash, dogs can go most anywhere their family can go: on sidewalks in our neighborhoods, on trails, and to any of our many parks.   

We also need to provide areas for “off leash” exercise:

• Lake Padden Park has a special fenced area for dogs and their families.   There is also a special water access area.
• Arroya Park is an “off leash” park.
• Post Point has an “off leash” field
• Sunset Pond is an “off leash” park where there is also water access.
• Bug Lake is an “off leash” park with water access, but harder to get to.
• Sehome Hill Arboretum is “off leash” on the secondary trails
• Bloedel Donovan Park  is  “off leash” during summer mornings before 10 a.m. and all day from October 1 to April 30
• Whatcom Falls Park is “off leash” on the waterline trail.
• Squalicum Park will also have a fenced area for dogs and their owners.  In the meantime, I often see dogs getting their exercise “off leash”.  
• Little Squalicum Park is an “off leash” park.  The adjoining beach is owned and regulated by the Port of Bellingham where I often see dogs getting their exercise in the water and are “off leash”.                         

3.  Because Bellingham needs more parks and trails for all users, I endorsed and worked on all three Greenway Levies.  I also advocated for Little Squalicum Park to be an “off leash” park and for the Little Squalicum Beach to be “off leash”, so dog owners who bring their dog companions will have more choices for recreation.

I also supported the return of “off leash” times for dogs in Bloedel Donovan Park.  It serves two purposes – for recreation for the dogs and their families AND to keep the geese population under control. 

4.  I voted for the New Squalicum Park to have a special fenced area for dogs to be “off leash” with their families.  In the meantime, I see dogs getting their exercise there without their leash.    

We have done a lot for a variety of users of our parks and need to do more.  As Bellingham grows, we will need more parks and trails for all users, including dogs and their families.  One option that I have spoken to Parks staff about is using the Port owned land on Marine Drive at the end of the Airport runway.  A lot of homes were removed from the area.  It seems we could use the area for a variety of parks needs – one of them being more area for dogs and their families.  I would certainly appreciate the input of the Grateful Dogs Organization.

4. The Squalicum Park off lease area is included in the park plan.  As we bring new areas into the City, I believe we need to have new parks area included in any plans that we approve for the annexation.  Some of the areas may include appropriate areas for off lease areas.  The city is currently looking at some other properties that may be able to incorporate a new off lease area.  I think it is very important for the Grateful Dogs Organization to continue to work with the council and the parks department to push for increases in off lease areas.  Bellingham is a big dog city.  Dogs need spaces to run not just to be walked on lease.  I own a Vizsla, a very active male.  With out the ability for him to run and swim on a regular bases he would be one unhappy dog.  I understand the need that exist and share in the frustration that progress has been slow in creating new areas.  I will continue to work with your group and others to get more space.

Response from Larry Farr

1. My experience is based solely on being a former large dog owner (sadly she had to be put down a year and a half ago).   Having been placed in the position of a dog owner, I know first hand that the concerns raised by Grateful Dogs are very real and the need for shared space continues to increase each year. 

2. I am seeking a seat on the city council – whose responsibility is to establish and ensure the ordinances are in place to serve the residents or our community.  This said, our residents own dogs, (according to the humane society 39% of U.S. households own at least one dog and 25 % of these owners have two dogs), and we must address the need for outdoor activity and the responsible use of recreational sites with our pets.  Through the position, I will support rules and areas of development that respond to the needs of those who have pets and are in need of using existing trails and parks as well as current and planned designated off leash areas.  I believe we need additional areas where pets can run responsibly.

3. Nothing, as of this point in time

4.  Planning for all aspects of the community are certainly part of the City Councils role, and seeking input from the various groups is something I have always done and will continue to do.  As we look at public space, recreational areas and future development of city code and regulations that could be of value and/or impact pet owners, the organized groups need to be consulted.  Grateful Dogs is one of the organizations that should and will be consulted as planning occurs.  As for a timeline… and future plans, this is an unknown to me at this time, but again, at every opportunity for development of such resources, off leash areas must be considered…this is what the community is asking for, and as a representative of the citizens, must be responded to.

Response from Dan Pike

As part of the 1/3 of Bellingham's population that has one,  two, or three dogs (I have a golden retriever named 'Lightbulb', named by my  then-4 year old son), plus two cats that think they are part of Lightbulb's  pack, I appreciate your concerns about providing reasonable off-leash areas for  dogs and owners.  Dogs need off-leash areas to fully exercise.   Nothing communicates joy quite like my golden just after I release him from his leash!

At the same time, dog owners need to be responsible with their animal partners.  With parks serving multiple purposes, for many different users, everyone needs to work together to ensure each of us has appropriate facilities for our recreational activities.  As you note, ticketing for  ignoring rules when there are insufficient venues for dogs  to be off-leash is  counterproductive, leading to hostility between the city and user groups, and  also to hostility among different park users.

In reviewing your materials, you have an impressive and distressing list of apparent city misfeasance and malfeasance as regards your group and advocacy for off-leash dog areas.  I have been aware of some of these issues, but I was ignorant of the overall extent.  When elected, I will ensure this gets appropriate attention and action.  It seems inappropriate for Parks to exclude citizens from an advisory panel--my  experience is that citizen advocates often bring significant understanding to  problems which may otherwise be missed, and the perception otherwise is one of  exclusion and bureaucratic control.

Frankly, your issue points to a larger issue within City and County government, the issue of communication.  I am running in large part because we need leaders who will build partnerships throughout the community to address problems and issues.  Issues such as the Lake Whatcom watershed, the Bellingham Bay cleanup and redevelopment, the vitality of our civic core are all being impacted for the worse by poor communication and an apparent unwillingness of public officials to put in the work needed to create consensus on issues, and then implement solutions.  Sadly, it sounds like your situation is one more bit of evidence in this regard.

I would love to talk with the Grateful Dogs Off Leash Association about your issues, and work with you to address them.   

Thanks for contacting me about this.