Letting the Doggies Run
As many of you know, I like the doggies. Yes, I am a prime example of the symbiotic relationship between dogs and humans, the relationship that some propose helped homo sapiens beat out our hominid competitors early in the unrecorded history of mankind. While mine does not help me hunt or guard the flocks, he does provide stress relief, activity and companionship -- factors that are essential to healthy sociable people.
And as many of you know, I live in Denver, CO. Compared to other cities of it's size, Denver is usually considered a very dog friendly place to live. For the sake of this post we'll not get into their aggressive breed banning of supposed "dangerous breeds" nor will we get into their draconian enforcement of leash rules on municipal parks due to an overpaid city parks manager who dislikes dogs; and we'll not mention that what Denver does, the rest of the metropolitan areas does. Let's just say, for the sake of this posting that Denver and the surrounding areas are fairly dog friendly with their ample municipal parks, nature trails, access to open space, national forests and state parks.
There are two Colorado state parks within or near the Denver metropolitan area. Chatfield State Park and Cherry Creek State Park. Both of these parks are the only two parks in the state park system that have leashless dog areas -- Chatfield's being approximately 75 acres with two ponds and about 2 miles of trails; Cherry Creek's dog area is about 145 acres with wide open spaces, miles of interconnecting trails and the creek that provides a refreshing cooler for dogs hard at play.
I live fairly close to one of those state parks.
As I said, these are the only two parks like this with amenities for the dogs (ie: water access) and room to maneuver for the dog owners/walkers. Now, there are plenty of municipal dog parks in the Denver Metro area but most of them are less than a football field in size with no water and no shade. They're more of an after-thought designed to appease residents and get dogs away from the more popular parks.
For a couple of years now, the State Parks Management Board has been trying to decide if the parks should be removed, resized or restricted in access. Needless to say this has upset a lot of dog owners. By their own numbers a vast majority of the state parks annual pass sales are to dog owners who use the off-leash areas. So why give that revenue up?
Tonight I went to the second Parks open house to discuss the future of the dog areas. The first one was to let us, the people, know that they are considering options which directly affect the dog areas and to provide us the studies and reports already conducted so we would see what the same information they're seeing.
Tonight's open house was to discuss three possible options for moving forward. I was assured that these options are not set in stone, there is no budget and public feedback is still appreciated for going forward.
The plans are thus:
Cutting the current off-leash area in half to 85 acres:
A) A north option with limited access to water, walled (fenced) in which would require a new parking lot to be built and road to access the lot.
B) A southern option, re-vamping the current parking lot which is now dirt with a dirt road to paved or graveled with no access to the water.
C) A southern option, re-vamping the current parking lot which is now dirt with a dirt road to paved or graveled with limited access to the water.
All of these options greatly reduce the available space for people and dogs when one of the biggest complaints about park staff is the dog areas are already over-crowded, especially from the spring though the fall.
While 85 acres seems like a lot of space you need to understand the dog areas get about 1.5 million visitors a year. On a warm weekend with nice weather there can easily be thousands of people and dogs that visit, usually with about an hour's turn-over rate.
So why would they want to reduce the off-leash area's size?
I agree with the park's management that the erosion caused by playing dogs near the water is something to be address, but it's being addressed in a heavy handed reactive method instead of small steps proactively over the past decade.
Now, I should inform you all that this is also a multi-use area. By that I mean people come through and run with their dogs, ride the bicycle with their dogs, cross-country ski in the winter with their dogs (all off-leash) and nearby residents are welcome to trailer in their horses and ride on the trails here as well, sometimes with their dogs.
There has been some contention over the past few years with the man who owns the horse stables which were put smack dab in the middle of the off-leash area. He thinks since he is paying the park a lease to use that land for his horses that dogs should not be allowed in the area. Dog owners have fought back and yelled at him that it's an off-leash area and he should be careful or quite bringing horses into the area.
So yes, there's been some arguments over the rights of who has access or priority at the park.
So, not only do they want to reduce the size of the off-leash area, but they want to add an additional "dog" fee on top of the park's daily usage fee or annual parks pass fee.
So, the annual pass is currently $65/year on top of the taxes we already pay that go to the parks. Then we pay an additional "water conservation" fee on top of that of $3/year. Now they want to add an additional fee to that, of an undetermined amount. Nickeled and dimed by the government, you have to love it.
They want to add an additional fee at the same time they're proposing to cut the size and scope of the dog area.
All that being said, the people at the open house were extremely friendly and informative. The park's GM was there as well as the regional park director and the layers in between. Every single one of them interacted with the public, I personally had the attention of the regional director for about a half an hour and the park's GM for 20 minutes or so. The GM stated they had no definitive plan nor did they have a proposed budget for the changes (which was a plus as far as I could tell) but were seeking public feedback for the proposals already in discussion. I couldn't tell if that's PR speak for we're just being nice and making you think you have a voice, or if it was honest community engagement.
Anywho, I'm tired, so peace-out.
And as many of you know, I live in Denver, CO. Compared to other cities of it's size, Denver is usually considered a very dog friendly place to live. For the sake of this post we'll not get into their aggressive breed banning of supposed "dangerous breeds" nor will we get into their draconian enforcement of leash rules on municipal parks due to an overpaid city parks manager who dislikes dogs; and we'll not mention that what Denver does, the rest of the metropolitan areas does. Let's just say, for the sake of this posting that Denver and the surrounding areas are fairly dog friendly with their ample municipal parks, nature trails, access to open space, national forests and state parks.
There are two Colorado state parks within or near the Denver metropolitan area. Chatfield State Park and Cherry Creek State Park. Both of these parks are the only two parks in the state park system that have leashless dog areas -- Chatfield's being approximately 75 acres with two ponds and about 2 miles of trails; Cherry Creek's dog area is about 145 acres with wide open spaces, miles of interconnecting trails and the creek that provides a refreshing cooler for dogs hard at play.
I live fairly close to one of those state parks.
As I said, these are the only two parks like this with amenities for the dogs (ie: water access) and room to maneuver for the dog owners/walkers. Now, there are plenty of municipal dog parks in the Denver Metro area but most of them are less than a football field in size with no water and no shade. They're more of an after-thought designed to appease residents and get dogs away from the more popular parks.
For a couple of years now, the State Parks Management Board has been trying to decide if the parks should be removed, resized or restricted in access. Needless to say this has upset a lot of dog owners. By their own numbers a vast majority of the state parks annual pass sales are to dog owners who use the off-leash areas. So why give that revenue up?
Tonight I went to the second Parks open house to discuss the future of the dog areas. The first one was to let us, the people, know that they are considering options which directly affect the dog areas and to provide us the studies and reports already conducted so we would see what the same information they're seeing.
Tonight's open house was to discuss three possible options for moving forward. I was assured that these options are not set in stone, there is no budget and public feedback is still appreciated for going forward.
The plans are thus:
Cutting the current off-leash area in half to 85 acres:
A) A north option with limited access to water, walled (fenced) in which would require a new parking lot to be built and road to access the lot.
B) A southern option, re-vamping the current parking lot which is now dirt with a dirt road to paved or graveled with no access to the water.
C) A southern option, re-vamping the current parking lot which is now dirt with a dirt road to paved or graveled with limited access to the water.
All of these options greatly reduce the available space for people and dogs when one of the biggest complaints about park staff is the dog areas are already over-crowded, especially from the spring though the fall.
While 85 acres seems like a lot of space you need to understand the dog areas get about 1.5 million visitors a year. On a warm weekend with nice weather there can easily be thousands of people and dogs that visit, usually with about an hour's turn-over rate.
So why would they want to reduce the off-leash area's size?
I agree with the park's management that the erosion caused by playing dogs near the water is something to be address, but it's being addressed in a heavy handed reactive method instead of small steps proactively over the past decade.
Now, I should inform you all that this is also a multi-use area. By that I mean people come through and run with their dogs, ride the bicycle with their dogs, cross-country ski in the winter with their dogs (all off-leash) and nearby residents are welcome to trailer in their horses and ride on the trails here as well, sometimes with their dogs.
There has been some contention over the past few years with the man who owns the horse stables which were put smack dab in the middle of the off-leash area. He thinks since he is paying the park a lease to use that land for his horses that dogs should not be allowed in the area. Dog owners have fought back and yelled at him that it's an off-leash area and he should be careful or quite bringing horses into the area.
So yes, there's been some arguments over the rights of who has access or priority at the park.
So, not only do they want to reduce the size of the off-leash area, but they want to add an additional "dog" fee on top of the park's daily usage fee or annual parks pass fee.
So, the annual pass is currently $65/year on top of the taxes we already pay that go to the parks. Then we pay an additional "water conservation" fee on top of that of $3/year. Now they want to add an additional fee to that, of an undetermined amount. Nickeled and dimed by the government, you have to love it.
They want to add an additional fee at the same time they're proposing to cut the size and scope of the dog area.
All that being said, the people at the open house were extremely friendly and informative. The park's GM was there as well as the regional park director and the layers in between. Every single one of them interacted with the public, I personally had the attention of the regional director for about a half an hour and the park's GM for 20 minutes or so. The GM stated they had no definitive plan nor did they have a proposed budget for the changes (which was a plus as far as I could tell) but were seeking public feedback for the proposals already in discussion. I couldn't tell if that's PR speak for we're just being nice and making you think you have a voice, or if it was honest community engagement.
Anywho, I'm tired, so peace-out.
Comments