Editor’s Note: The decision by trustees at Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School establishing new restrictions governing the use of the Smith Farm Fields prompted the following letters from residents.
It seems to me that, among other missing parts of the issues surrounding the dog park, we are operating without very much evidence of even potential damage.
It has been said by both school administrators and Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School trustees that dog poop on hay can cause harm to cows or their offspring.
Can we get the involved veterinarians to respond to the dangers of occasional missed poops in the fields, since the paths are now cleaned up? Unless the grass in treed or bushy areas is mowed for cattle feed, fences will certainly prevent contaminated hay.
Each individual limitation on reasonable behavior by dog owners should have evidence to support the decision. Without careful exploration of the open fields before and after fencing, there is no way that these absent land managers can verify the amount of dog poop that makes it to the barns.
Has anyone ever seen a report of field conditions or a report of disease in the herd over the past several years during which there were “no limits” on dog activity?
Have there been other consequences to herd management during these many years of use by dogs off leash? In a document urging drastic and unpopular change to using public land, why are there no references to public health studies, or even mentions of reports filed by veterinarians describing herd or human illness related to dog feces on agricultural land in the commonwealth.
It would be improper, and a public health emergency, if these diseases were traced to dogs in our midst. In fact it has been dairy contamination that has caused illness, with subsequent closure of some dairies.
In those reports there were no references to the role of dogs.
Michael Posner
Florence
The Department of Agricultural Resource’s rejection that Smith Vocational and Agricultural Superintendent Jeffrey Peterson alluded to in his reasoning to promote leash-only rules at the Smith Farm Fields should be more closely examined.
In his 60-page document submitted to the state, only one line referred to “passive recreational use.” Of course the state would ask for more detail!
However, Peterson and the school’s three trustees (time to replace them?) decided to use this state request to basically shut down the area for off-leash walking, citing the damage to the agricultural fields. It is clear to me that the culture of clearing the paths of waste has improved 10,000-fold, yet the letter to the state denies this truth.
There was not one attempt to reach out to any dog walker in the past four months to further a discussion that may have led to alternatives to allow this exquisite ability to exercise people and dogs. If the trustees, Peterson, the mayor and Northampton school superintendant (all ex-officios), and Tim Smith, the farm manager, really feel that the potential degradation of the farmed fields is the issue, then why not propose fences? Too expensive? I think not!
There are many area veterinarians and animal hospitals that would probably sponsor various lengths of fencing. There are many dog walkers that would contribute to strategic fencing. There may also be Community Preservation Act money and state grants that could be used for such a solution.
After working for over a year on possible solutions, all which have been rejected by these officials, (some of whom have not had the simple courtesy to return my phone calls or emails) I am delighted that this issue has become front and center for the hundreds who use the fields on a daily or less frequent basis.
It seems to me that fences make good neighbors!
Judith Fine
Norhampton
We are troubled by the decision of the Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School’s board of trustees to close the Smith Farm Fields to off-leash dogs. We think this is a bad decision.
The Smith Farm Fields is a real treasure for our community. Many of our employees and clients here at Riverbend Animal Hospital use the park almost daily.
The benefits of off-leash exercise for dogs is unquestioned. Obesity is a huge problem for dogs and for people, and studies show that exercising together helps both lose weight.
In addition, dogs are social animals, and the off-leash interaction with other dogs at the park is enormously beneficial for their growth as adjusted, confident members of the community.
The concerns presented at a meeting last week were overblown at best, and some were simply untrue. The narrow-minded plan adopted by the Smith trustees is lousy not just for dog walkers but for the community at large.
David Thomson, DVM, and Ann McEwen
Northampton
The authors own Riverbend Animal Hospital in Hadley.
Woof! Rusty the dog here. My owner loves me so much she lets me run wild like a wolf in public parks, woof woof hurray. I love her.
She feeds me. Woof. She pets me. Woof woof. I even get to sleep in her bed, hoowa woof! I’ll always protect her!
She believes I would never hurt another people primate. Well, I just might if I have to! As her mother-in-law often says – ya just never know.
My lovable owner also doesn’t know that my romping and all of my millions of friends’ romping causes lots and lots of breeding migratory birds to abandon their nest, and some of my buds destroy nests of endangered birds on beaches, a super place to be a wolf. Too bad.
Oh, and please don’t tell her that my un-bagged poop contributes to serious water pollution. In fact, the 78 million dogs living in the United States create 10 million tons of feces annually, polluting waterways and posing a threat to public health. Woof, stuff like bacteria, worms and other parasites that thrive in waste until it’s washed away into the fishing places and reserviors. Too bad, woof.
Oh my woof! Do tell her, however, that my feline kitty cat friends (she has one – Felix) like to play tiger outside and they actually kill over 4 billion birds and small animals annually. Whew woof, no guilt on my part. Dang cats.
So, what to do? I’m just a dog doing dog stuff. While wolfing one morning, I heard a people primate say silly things like, woof, create off-leash dog parks, and all other public places are dog prohibited (or strictly on-leash). Apparently, some people primates actually like quiet walks, woof?
And the people primate said — top secret, not a word — if a people primate gets hurt by any “friendly” dog, just take the friendly woof owner to friendly people primate court. My owner just ignored him. Woof woof for her.
Oh, there’s a bunny, gotta go! Woof.
Steve Funderburk
Pelham
I appreciate the suggestions in several letters published May 20 that the Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School trustees modify their plan for the “dog park” to allow limited off-leash hours at specified times.
In addition, I suggest that the boundaries and leash rules of the so-called “dog park” be clearly posted on signs. In the absence of a fence, it is impossible to know where the “park” area begins and ends. I suggest that dogs outside the park’s clearly marked borders be leashed at all times, and that dogs inside the park be allowed to run free during the specified hours. At all other times dogs should be leashed.
I offer this suggestion because I understand that dogs need to run freely, just as humans do. I also understand that unleashed dogs can inadvertently harm joggers. It is not only “dog attacks” that harm joggers. A friendly unleashed dog can be just as dangerous to joggers as an aggressive unleashed dog.
In 2013, while jogging along the Mill River path, I was knocked over by a friendly unleashed dog. The dog meant no harm and the owner was apologetic, but the incident caused me substantial physical and financial injury.
I underwent two hours of surgery, had a titanium plate installed in my wrist, and stayed overnight. I received an intensive course of painkillers and antibiotics, had weeks of physical therapy, and spent substantial sums of money on co-payments and other medical expenses not covered by insurance. For a while I was legally unable to drive and had to hire drivers at my own expense.
As I wrote in a Gazette article published Sept. 30, 2013, “the so-called ‘dog park’ has no clearly labeled boundaries, much less any fencing to separate unleashed animals from joggers and pedestrians. No special times of day are set aside for walking dogs, which means that joggers have no choice as to when they can jog and avoid encountering dogs.”
I am glad that three years later our community is having a conversation about how to ensure the safety and well-being of all creatures who love to run in a natural setting.
The Rev. Margaret Bullitt-Jonas
Northampton
Trustees came up with good plan for fields
The Gazette is just “barking up the wrong tree.” Having attended the May 17 meeting at the Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School, I was surprised to read two reports and an editorial that would lead one to believe that the reason for the proposed ban on unleashed dogs was because of dog attacks.
What I heard said by Michael Cahillane, chairman of the school’s trustees, was that the primary issue was decontamination of the fields from dog eliminations. It is true that owners have done a good job of keeping the trails clean, but the dogs often run off into the fields or brush to relieve themselves, and the owners do not venture within to pick up after them.
So making a strong case for the fact that dog attacks are rare does not address the concerns of the state Department of Agriculture for an uncontaminated area for farmers to plant their crops.
The proposal that the trustees have put forth is a good compromise, allowing for continued recreational use of the land for dog owners and non-dog owners alike.
I would suggest that these journalists and dog owners, rather than stoking up needless controversy, put their efforts into exerting pressure on the city to provide a suitable park space dedicated to allowing dogs to run free.
Gerard Simonette
Northampton
Can we share with other creatures that live among us?At present, we humans have numerous choices of parks and trails to enjoy in our area. Dogs have the “dog park.” It is currently the only place for our dogs to delight in socializing with their own kind and joyfully run and play until tired in an outdoor space.
When free, the dogs pause, greet and then romp. It is a real life paradise for these fleet-footed, highly energized big and little furry ones. Our park is unparalleled for its opportunity to let dogs engage in all senses and experience what it means to be a dog in a natural setting.
It is truly a glorious and exciting playground for our beloved pets. We must now ask: can we share our open space? Can we dial back on our territorial instincts?
As animals that commandeer so much in this world for our own, we should do the right thing now: accommodate a little bit for the beings we have tamed by allowing them to run in the “dog park.”
Kate Faulkner
Florence
On a recent trip to Boston, I was pleasantly surprised to see two areas in the Boston Commons where dogs were allowed to run free. The joy was unmistakable. For city dogs to have this pleasure is just fantastic.
And yet here in a wide-open, semi-rural area responsible dog owners are being forced to keep their dogs on a leash because of the bad behavior of a small minority of irresponsible dog owners.
Those of us who own and love our dogs know the joy they get by running free. That is their natural state. Humans cannot keep up with dogs and restricting them to a human pace is unnecessary.
All that I’ve read about the “dog park” seems to indicate that the “problem” of dogs running free is pretty much a “tempest in a teapot,” or as they say about voter ID laws “a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.”
As a dog owner who lives near a state park where dogs are supposed to be leashed, I often walk my dog without one because I don’t enjoy being dragged or made to stop at every bush.
In fact, whenever I put a leash on my dog, as soon as I remove it she takes off for home seemingly fearful of being restrained again. She is a lucky dog because we live in a rural area where she lives off leash.
So, for residents of Northampton who have come to love this freedom for their dogs, the new policy at the “dog park” is seen as a slap in the face.
Please, if Boston can handle dogs running freely in areas of the common, surely Northampton can handle one place where dogs and humans can run freely and have fun.
Smith Vocational folks are punishing 99 percent of responsible dog owners because of 1 percent of losers and irresponsible dog owners.
It would be better to establish a process to determine who should be banned from the area for bad behavior than to implement an all-out ban on free range dogs. Let common sense prevail.
Dan Daniels
South Hadley
Regarding the ‘dog park,’ there are a few things I don’t understand. Folks in this area are so sensitive to humans with differences from themselves, but seem so intolerant to a species with the same right to be on this earth as we humans.
They care about the plight of whales, baby seals and endangered species, but are intolerant and unempathetic to a species that has lived among and loved humans for thousands of years. Like any animal, dogs need to run, play, socialize and experience the freedom of being a creature on this planet.
Owners go to great inconvenience to take them to one of the few places that allows this. On the other hand, folks who don’t want to be imposed upon by dogs won’t display tolerance for dogs’ needs by merely traveling to one of the many other great places there are to jog, walk or hike.
Walking in the dog park and asking that all the dogs be tied up for them echoes frequenting Legal Sea Foods and informing the server you’re allergic to seafood so please make sure it is kept away while you have spaghetti.
The same wonderful and renowned tolerance the Valley is loved for could be directed to this species who belongs on this earth and has a right to be cage-free and untethered if only for a tiny fraction of their life.
If one dog or dog owner is not respectful, that could be addressed individually as it is with humans. It just seems logical to have a little empathy for this species’ needs and leave them in peace and jog or walk elsewhere, where humans are welcomed, but this species is not.
We can share this planet. Dogs, like all living things, deserve our respect.
Nami Assir
Northampton
I attended a meeting of the trustees of Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School the other night. I am sorely disappointed by their decision and by their apparent lack of effort and desire to engage in a collaborative process to resolve the issue of allowing dogs to be off-leash at the farm fields near the old state hospital.
Enormous efforts have been contributed by countless volunteers to eliminate the problem of dog waste, to educate dog-walkers about the need to maintain control of their dogs at all times, and to have consideration for the needs of other recreational users of that property.
This parcel of land in Northampton is a jewel. I have been walking on the trails there for 35 years, and I consider those walks to be and integral part of my (and my dogs’) daily routine. There is no other land in the area where dogs can be off-leash and not be tempted by deer, porcupine and skunks!
In addition, it has provided me with connections to people whom I would otherwise never have known or developed friendships with. I have lived in many towns around the Valley in those 35 years, and I still drive there every morning with my dogs so that they can have the experience of unleashed exercise and socialization with other dogs.
It appears that the trustees have not acted in good faith, and have been unwilling to truly examine the issue in order to provide a collaborative and mutually beneficial solution.
Jennifer Smith
Williamsburg
Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School’s decision to ban off-leash dogs at Smith Farm Fields is disappointing and unexpected.
Meetings with Smith Vocational administration last spring made it clear that the dog waste littering the trails was incompatible with the agricultural purpose of the property. A group of dog walkers rallied to the cause and organized a huge effort to insure dog waste was picked up.
Over the past year, a small group has volunteered for weekly “poop duty,” carrying out bags, at $2 a piece, from their own pocket. The daily trips and weight of the bags attest to the success of the effort. The trails are virtually free of waste.
We were, therefore, dismayed and disheartened to be told that “although some owners have organized a committee to help clean up after their animals, clearly most owners do not.”
This unwillingness to acknowledge the efforts implies that dog owners continue to act irresponsibly, which is both disrespectful and incorrect. Although the dog waste problem has been addressed, the issue of dogs running in fields remains.
While we did not hear convincing arguments to the effect that dogs pose significant obstacles to agriculture, we were surprised to hear no offers of compromise.
For instance, could fences be erected around certain fields? We live in a caring and giving community and the efforts of fundraising for fencing could be accomplished in a short period. Could restricted “off-leash” hours be implemented to accommodate other users? Could winter months offer relief from leash restrictions?
As members of the Northampton community, Smith Vocational enjoys certain advantages. We hope that they will acknowledge the sincere efforts made by dog walkers and engage more constructively in the immediate future to find a solution that allows our dogs to run freely, happily on the trails.
Brigitte Holt
Florence
This letter was signed by 15 other concerned dog walkers.
Vets: Benefits outweigh injury risks
Like a large number of people in our area, we believe that the small risk inherent in having an open area with dogs running free is more than made up for by the enormous gains for humans and dogs alike.
While we would never advocate that poorly trained or aggressive dogs use such a space, as veterinarians, we can attest to the fact that dogs that have access to open play with other dogs and intense exercise are happier and more mentally balanced.
Even more importantly, dogs that are taught to come back on command despite distractions are much less likely to get hit by a car or attack a person or another dog should they get loose. Well exercised, happier dogs are less likely to cause injury inside our homes.
Furthermore, people with dogs get out, take walks and enjoy better health, both mentally and physically. The passionate outpouring and volunteerism of our friends and neighbors with dogs speaks to the importance of this issue.
While we support the creation of a smaller fenced-in designated dog park in town, a large open area with access to swimming is irreplaceable.
We strongly urge the trustees of Smith Vocational School to recognize the enormous value of finding a compromise that works for everybody when considering the use of their land.
Ellie Shelburne and
Lori Paporello
Northampton
The authors are veterinarians who own Northampton Veterinary Clinic.
Surely, compromise is possible
Regarding the restrictions against dog walking at the old state hospital fields, surely a compromise could have been reached that allowed an activity that has been allowed to flourish on Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School’s watch.
The very fact that no one really knows what to call the fields (‘dog park, state hospital, running path) is a testament to the lack of oversight and use by the stewards — the state and the school.
As a life-long resident of Northampton and a dog walker I have certainly witnessed various liberties taken by some — walking through what are clearly farmed fields or forging new pathways to increase the walkability of the site.
Have there always been unsavory dogs and unsavory people to encounter? No more so than walking on the city streets.
The fact is the responsible people (and dogs) far outweigh the irresponsible ones and so many of them have stepped up to do whatever it takes to hold onto the experience of off-leash dog walking that they have enjoyed for decades.
I applaud Smith Voke for increasing their programming and making themselves more competitive over the past few years. This is a good school filled with good people and it needs to thrive.
But surely learning to be a good neighbor comes with the territory. Each and every local official who has a say on this matter should consider that the fields have been allowed to grow into a multipurpose use area.
Where is the leadership in this community? Unless there is a photo-op involved it seems that officials want to defer and remain silent. Being part of a community means making compromises, taking responsibility for actions and working through challenges.
It is hard to work towards a solution where everyone feels heard, where everyone gets some satisfaction, where responsible parties get a fair shake.
Nothing will be perfect but there is nothing perfect about draconian mandates and silent bystanders. There are solutions to this issue which many people are willing to take on if those at the top have the courage to put in some effort.
Elizabeth Volkmann
Northampton
Press state to
overrule trustees
I am thrilled to see the numerous letters to the editor in favor of off-leash dog walking at Smith Fields, they are crucially important to be made public and should be flying in!
It would be just as important for the dog lovers to be writing, calling, lobbying in all ways to the state Department of Agriculture to stop the trustees proposal and even to make their own suggestions before it is enacted upon.
Look up the department online. Read their mission statements, including support of the Humane Society in one of their divisions. Hold them accountable for the public use of this state land.
I do pay taxes after all. Thank you! Woof Woof!
Karol Brodeur
Easthampton
Board needs to
revisit its decision
The Smith Vocational and Agricultural High School Board of Trustees should revisit its decision regarding the Smith Farm Fields.
Unfortunately, its decisions regarding how to accommodate the public have waffled from one overly simplistic extreme (essentially do nothing) to another (require all dogs on leashes at all times).
I know the board is capable of a more thoughtful and nuanced decision that better resolves the problem and serves the competing public interests. For example, require dogs on leashes at certain times of the day. That allows dogs and their owners to exercise more freely and provides predictability to those who would rather not be present during those times.
Until the board does its job by achieving a more balanced approach it seems like it is arbitrarily picking winners and losers, regardless of the merits.
Please board members, act more responsibly for the public, do some homework and derive a solution that better accommodates the whole of our community.
Timothy Jones
Northampton
Keep a place where dogs can be dogs
The Smith Vocational land-use plan requiring dogs to be leashed at the “dog park” seems an over-reaction to the complaints of a few.
There are many responsible off-leash dog-owners who value their dogs enjoying the freedom of running through fields and woods, swimming in the river, and playing with other dogs.
Is it too much to ask to keep one place where dogs can be dogs? Occasionally, dogs jump up on or bump into people as they jostle with their dog friends. This can be an annoyance but is it such a problem that all rights to run free are taken from all dogs?
The Gazette requested records of police responses to incidents at the dog park over the past five years. All evidence suggests there wasn’t much of a problem with off-leash dogs. Of the approximately 800 police responses, only two concerned dogs harming people. And neither of the two incidences could be considered “dog attacks.”
Zero tolerance is what led to unfair mass human incarceration, and when Michael Cahillane, chairman of the Smith Vocational trustees, referring to off-leash dog incidents at the park, says, “All I need is one,” I hear a knee-jerk reaction without much thought.
Would we suggest banning all 1.6 billion peaceful Muslims because of the actions of a few violent extremists? We live in an area with a multitude of outdoor hiking and running areas — almost all of which do not allow dogs off-leash.
Am I too demanding in suggesting that those who fear or are inconvenienced by encounters with off-leash dogs use the many other areas for their outdoor adventures? Does every last outdoor place need to become an environment denying a dog’s right to enjoy the healthy benefits of nature?
Steve Kelly
Hadley