Written by Jeff Young to the NRC Director in response to the closing of Punkatasset to dogs off-leash:
Yes, we are very disappointed in the NRC’s decision to ban dogs off-leash in Punkatasset. But we are even more disappointed in how you have done so, without providing any evidence that there was ever a real problem. Your failure to provide a convincing argument to support your decision leads us to wonder what may be motivating and driving this issue?
From your statements, you attended a meeting last spring where the issue of dogs in conservation land was discussed. (This is mentioned in the minutes.) Prior to this, you also attended a meeting at the home of Neil Rasmussen along with NRC Commissioner Lynn Huggins. (This is also disclosed in the minutes.) The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a strategy for creating a deterrent to off leash dog walking in Estabrook Woods. The Rasmussen’s (who are direct Abutter’s) felt that the area was becoming over used and have been working on restricting access over the past two years. Mr. Rasmussen called on all neighboring property owners to enact a new policy calling the woods a nature preserve and for requiring dogs to be on leash. (This is the same Abutter who for many years now, hosts twice annual private fox hunts, where dozens of horses, people and dogs run off leash throughout Estabrook Woods, and recently erected an imposing and permanent structure across what the town considers to be public property.)
Adopting and then promoting his policy, you presented this proposal to the town on May 11, 2017. You referred to some very suspect studies as justification, but no one in attendance saw or heard anything other than your very weak, anecdotal evidence. In fact, the studies and animal species you referred to, either did not exist in Concord, or were completely inapplicable. At least twenty Concord residents who use the woods on a daily basis, reported a completely different assessment. Your proclamations of disease, attacks and wildlife harassment left meeting attendees scratching their heads wondering if they have been living in the same town?
The survey of Concord dog owners by Concord Unleashed clearly verifies these sentiments. The issues identified as justification for the off-leash ban by the NRC, are not seen as anywhere nearly as problematic by those who actually use these lands. Dogs disturbing and/or attacking wildlife is seen as a major issue by only 3.4%. It is a “very minor” or a “non issue” to 83%. Out of town dog owners using Concord’s land (another suspect reason cited by the NRC) is seen as a major issue by only 6.6%. 81% consider it only “somewhat” or “not an issue”. The two remaining issues used as excuses for limiting access, dog waste and poor owner control of dogs are also extremely exaggerated by the NRC. The survey identifies both as only being seen by less than 11% as a major issue.
All of these issues are easily remedied, either through education or by providing waste receptacles. Three independent experts with advanced degrees in environmental science have concluded that there is simply no evidence dogs are a detriment to wildlife in the Concord woods. In fact, Tom French, the Massachusetts Fish and Game Assistant Director, stated that dogs are often used for political purposes to restrict access, as there is no conclusive evidence that they have any significant environmental impact.
But perhaps most distressing, you and the Commissioners have been presented with an overwhelming number of responses from town residents in opposition to your proposal. Hundreds of letters, a petition signed by 1144 Concordians, and a Boston Globe pole, have shown that the vast majority are not in favor of restricting dogs at Punkatasset. More recently, a survey completed by over 600 residents, decisively shows nearly 90% of Concord dog owners, do not agree with your conclusions. Even the town sponsored Estabrook Woods Access Study concluded that Punkatasset should remain available for off-leash. Yet you have ignored any input from the very people who use these properties, and chosen to side with a very small minority to benefit them.
Unfortunately, this whole process calls the NRC’s integrity into serious question. The reality being that the NRC is trumping up concerns that are completely unfounded with no factual basis. Coupled with the fact that the head of the NRC had never set foot in Punkatasset until we invited her, leaves us with little reason to buy into this new policy and perhaps even sadder, a lack of confidence in the NRC in general. So yes, we are indeed disappointed, but only because you have completely failed to consider any other options. Instead, you have elected to move forward with a terribly flawed and ill-conceived proposal that has a tremendous impact on so many of our town’s biggest outdoor enthusiasts.