Published in the Boulder Daily Camera, Insight and Opinion,

Sunday, February 1, 1998 Page: 8D

by Gene Wheaton (Gene is a member of FIDOS - Friends Interested in Dogs and Open Space.) Revised 3-1-07 by Ed Mills, FIDOS President

It was the fall of 1959 and the proposed Dog Leash Law was the hottest issue in Boulder since fires burned Flagstaff Mountain the previous summer. Eisenhower was president. The cold war was heating up, and the Boulder City Council was considering legalized bingo games. Other hot topics included establishing a library, building a swimming pool, and a rezoning proposal. Five special issues were placed on the City's November 3rd election ballot. The leash law was added by a four to two vote of the City Council with three members absent.

"I would rather see this proposal come from the people themselves by petition," Councilman Allen stated commenting on the fact the City Council had initiated the proposal.

The leash law also sparked a raging debate (for its time) in the local paper. The Daily Camera's 'Letters to the Open Forum' printed comments from both sides and ran an article listing arguments for and against the issue on Oct. 26. Arguments for the law stated the need to protect people and property. The current law was enforced only by complaints, and many people are reluctant to complain to police about neighbors. It also reasoned that, "complete enforcement of a leash law is not necessary; the mere existence of a law would provide an effective weapon for use when circumstances permit."

Arguments against the leash law ranged from "the present law is sufficient," to please not imprison mans best friend. The Camera's article also pointed out that "an unenforceable law creates more problems than it solves and generates disrespect for laws in general." One forum letter writer said "Boulder has a logical, well thought out dog control law now which protects us from the bad actors of the canine world and gives ample recourse to anyone with a valid complaint." The writer also complained that the proposed $30,000 annual expense for additional enforcement could be better spent on street lights and paving.

The dog leash law was adopted by a 564 vote margin with a total of 3,565 for and 3,001 against. The penalty was set at $300 maximum fine or a maximum jail sentence of 90 days, or both a fine and imprisonment. The law provided that all dogs in Boulder must be confined at all times, either on their own premises or, when away from home, on a leash held by a person responsible for the dog or else in a vehicle or otherwise confined. In other words, no dog is allowed to run at large, even if accompanied by its owner, and no dog can be tethered or tied to any object other than the owners hand.

Seven years later, the City of Boulder had created a new zoning district designated as 'Agricultural.' Encompassing lands purchased by the city and located in the county, they required an ordinance covering Dog Control since they were outside the city limits. In response to demands by frustrated dog owners the City Council considered the needs of dogs to run free on this newly designated land and passed Ordinance 3080 which removed the leash law from what would soon become City of Boulder Open Space. It did not alter the leash law in the city, but dogs could now be exercised off leash in limited areas owned by the City of Boulder if they were under 'Voice and Sight control,' a policy originated by the Boulder Mountain Park system, a division of the Parks and Recreation Department, that has always allowed dogs off leash.

Matters took a turn for the worse concerning dogs over the next few years. In Feb. of 1970 an article in the Camera quoted Don F. Marmande, director of the Division of Environmental Health for the City-County Health Department as saying, "the success of the enforcement of this leash law is directly related to the cooperation of Boulder Citizens." He reminded residents of the current restrictions and mentioned allowing dogs to run at large early in the morning and late in the evenings is one of the biggest problems in Boulder. He also said that within the City limits it is still illegal for dogs to "run along side of its owner while jogging, riding a bicycle, or any other form of exercise unless on a leash."

On April 7th, 1978, the Board of Directors of the Boulder County Humane Society sent a memorandum to City Manager Bob Westdyke requesting an additional animal control officer and fines for unaltered and unlicensed dogs caught running at large. By adding an additional officer, the memorandum stated, the number of dogs impounded, warnings given and summons issued will increase. They felt it was the next logical step in "combating the local animal overpopulation problem." They also advised the city to consider a door to door canvass to enforce the use of licenses. The proposed canvas should take place in the early spring near the license deadline. The canvas never occurred but an additional dog control officer was added.

Unleashed dog walkers suffered further setbacks in the early 80's. Following increasing citizen complaints, the Boulder City Council again took matters into their own hands and initiated a proposal for an ordinance containing the words "no person owning or keeping any dog at the Boulder Reservoir or Coot Lake in the city shall fail to keep the dog on the premises of the owner or keeper unless the dog is....". This was latter revised by Ordinance No. 4862 in 1984 to clear up the wording but it basically banned dogs off leash from those areas.

By 1994 the City's Agricultural District had become the 'Open Space and Real Estate Department' and its holdings had grown to 32,000 acres and hosted 3.5 million visitors a year. By comparison Rocky Mountain National Park which is eight times as large has 3 million visitors a year. As part of the long range management policy revision initiated by the Open Space Department, future dog control on city owned Open Space would be 'revised.'

Jim Crain, director of the department, stated, "as the Boulder area continues to urbanize we see more and more people come to use our system. As the area is built up, we think this is an issue we need to address now. What are we going to have left? Where is wildlife going to find a home?" Crain said burrowing owls and prairie dogs have disappeared in places and related that to the intrusion of dogs and careless owners. His sentiments were echoed by city council members who believed an influx of people who live in other cities in the area that have chosen 'growth over setting aside open space' pose a threat.

The explosion of public sentiment against the proposed leash law for all of open space was barely anticipated when the Open Space Department announced a meeting to discuss the issue at the Public Library Auditorium on Friday, March 11th, 1994. Matt Van Wormer, a Boulder resident and frequent Open Space trail user, spear headed a group called Friends Interested In Dogs and Open Space--referred to as FIDOS---- and marshaled support to fight what they perceived as arbitrary restrictions. Driven by the proposed policies dealing with the impact of dogs, Van Wormer told the Daily Camera in a March 31st article that, "Maybe dogs are a problem in some spots, but to say 'all dogs on leashes' is just a silly stupid statement. I won't vote for Open Space again. I wouldn't have voted for it had I known I wouldn't be able to use it." Van Wormer suggested seasonal closures that allowed dogs in less sensitive areas.

Public sentiment supported FIDOS. A January, 1995, Daily Camera reader response survey asked what the top three priorities for 1995 should be for the Boulder City Council. The unscientific survey put dogs, and the right to walk them off leash on Open Space trails as the most important issues to readers.

By February 1995, Fidos had grown to 1500 organized dog lovers. To avoid confrontation, the City Council removed rules governing dogs from its "revised draft" Long Range Management Policy for Open space. The council set up a series of meetings with environmentalists, dog owners, and city staff to develop a "realistic" proposal for regulating dogs. What would become known as the 'Dog Roundtable' set a new course in deciding management issues on City owned lands.

In 1996 a Citizen driven initiative, fueled by the need to relieve Open Space from overuse by dog owners driving to areas where they could exercise dogs off leash, lead two Boulder neighborhood groups to request exceptions to the leash law. They asked that Howard Hueston Park and a small area of Wonderland Lake Open Space be designated 'voice and site control areas' within the city limits.

The idea gained support from FIDOS , The Humane Society of Boulder Valley, and staff members of Boulder Mountain Parks who realized this would relieve the impact on Open space. A similar opinion was stated by a Daily Camera Editorial from Oct. 30th: "Question 2A would also relieve confusion over leash law boundaries, such as in Boulder Valley Ranch where trails wander in and out of city boundaries. ...We urge a yes vote on Ballot question 2A."

Passed by overwhelming voter support in November 1996, the new law recognized the need to set aside parcels of park land for the primary use of residents and their dogs off leash. In addition, two fenced dog exercise and training areas of least one acre in size, would be established to allow dogs who are not yet trained in voice and sight commands to be able to practice these skills in a fenced environment.

The Policies and Procedures established by the City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department for the creation of future 'voice and sight control' areas within the city limits list the following criteria; 'Requests for off leash voice and sight control areas or suggestions for locations for potential areas shall be initiated, in writing, by citizens, Park and Recreation staff or Open space staffs. These requests should include a map or a sketch which clearly identifies the site. All requests for establishment of voice and sight control areas should be sent to the Park Superintendent, City of Boulder. There must be demonstrated significant neighborhood support for utilizing the requested location for a voice and sight control area. The support may take the form of petitions, letters of support and an endorsement from the local civic association or homeowners association.'

In response to the Wonderland Lake and Howard Hueston Park petitions two public meetings to gage citizen reaction to the proposals were held on January 15th and 20th at the parks headquarters on Broadway. A letter of support for the proposals was issued by the Humane Society and enforcement of voice and site control within the city limits discussed with the Animal Control officers. Additional discussions were initiated to explore access to City of Boulder buses by dogs and their owners. An off leash area at Howard Heuston Parks was approved.

In 2000, Boulder consolidated the Departments of Open Space and Mountain Parks. FIDOS had voiced concerns for Dog Guardians because we envisioned more restrictive policies for dogs on the horizon.

In the fall of 2002, the renamed Department of Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) announced the formation of a second visitor plan advisory committee (VPAC II) for a renewed attempt at formulating a visitor plan for OSMP. Stakeholder groups were encouraged to recommend representatives to the committee. When the appointments were announced in January ’03 every member of any recreational group including FIDOS was excluded.

Much of the VPAC II process became a trial on dogs. FIDOS took exceptions to statements inserted by staff like the following:

• Loose dogs create extreme and widespread environmental damage.
• Voice and Sight regulations are unenforceable.
• Numerous reports of loose dogs attacking young calves.
• There is no place on open space suitable for a dog park.

• 1) FIDOS and other stake holders would be directly involved on the committee.
• 2) The focus would be on the specifics of visitor use being respectful of previous policy documents i.e. the city charter, the management plan of 1975 and Boulder's Dog Management Plan. NOT overriding these.
• 3) Strategies would not be based on unsubstantiated statements lacking factual information.

In the spring of 2004, FIDOS worked with Open Space/Mountain Parks (OSMP) staff to create a set of agreements that would allow dog guardians to continue to enjoy voice and sight control on many OSMP trails, with the trade-off of increased restrictions and enforcement.

Key Elements of the FIDOS/OSMP agreement are:

• Educational Video and Tag Program
• A short educational video would be created, describing the expectations for dogs under voice and sight control on OSMP lands. Upon signing a statement promising to keep their dogs under control (by voice and sight, leashing, or a combination of both), guardians would receive a tag for their dogs. Dogs without the tag would have to be leashed on OSMP lands.
• Three Strikes Policy.
Dog guardians who receive three tickets or a warning and two tickets within any two-year period would lose voice and sight privileges and could only regain them by completing a voice and sight certification program. Fines would increase with each successive offense.
• New Leashed Trails.
The following trails, now voice and sight, would be leashed
• 1. Green Mountain West Ridge
• 2. Green Bear (part of the connection between Bear Peak and Green Mountain summit).
• 3. Bear Canyon (access to the peaks from the Mesa Tail)
• 4. Bear Peak West Ridge (part of the connection between Bear Peak and Green Mountain summit)
• 5. Fern Canyon (access to Bear Peak from the Mesa Trail)
• 6. Fowler (south of Eldorado Springs)
• 7. Boulder Creek Path (along South Boulder Creek) north of Arapahoe to KOA Lake.
• 8.Chautauqua Meadow (three trails)

No Dog Trails FIDOS has agreed that the system should offer some new no dog trails for those who do not wish to meet dogs. We have recommended that new no-dog trails should be built, and have suggested short no-dog nature loops at popular trailheads. The following existing trails would go from voice and sight to no dogs

• 1. Long Canyon
• 2. Greenman
• 3. Sombrero Marsh
On-Corridor Voice and Sight. The agreement contains a provision allowing some trails in Agricultural and Habitat Conservation areas, which would otherwise be designated leash, to be instead designated voice and sight, as long as dogs remain on the trail corridor (within 20 feet of the trail). These include:
• 1. Ranger (access to Green Mountain Summit)
• 2. Bear Peak (connector between South Boulder Peak and Bear Peak)

Compliance Studies

The draft Visitor Plan designated the Sage Trail at Boulder Valley Ranch and the Big Bluestem-South Boulder Creek loop as leashed trails. According to the agreement, studies at these trails would measure compliance with voice and sight requirements and would note impacts caused by dogs. The following trails would be designated leash if dogs fail the compliance studies and voice and sight on-corridor if they pass (but with seasonal leashing restrictions on Big Bluestem).

• 1. Sage at Boulder Valley Ranch (northern half)
• 2. Big Bluestem
• 3. South Boulder Creek
New Restrictions These trails would remain voice and sight, but with restrictions.
• 1. Bobolink (restrictions on where dogs may enter the creek))
• 2. Doudy Draw (seasonal leashing restrictions))
• 3. Ranger (dogs must remain within trail corridor))
• 4. Bear Peak (dogs must remain within trail corridor)

FIDOS continues to champion allowing dogs off leash if the owner can exercise the ability to perform voice and sight control. The provision in City Ordinance 6-1-12 BRC defines this skill as exercising control over your dog, so that the dog does not charge, chase or display aggression toward any person, dog, wildlife, or livestock. Your dog must come and stay by your side immediately upon command. In addition, the law states that you must have a leash in your possession at all times and have no more than two dogs under voice and sight control at any time.

FIDOS has come to believe that the voice and sight control ordinance is the most effective legal precedent defining appropriate social interaction for dog owners. The days of the family dog tied in the backyard have evolved into full realization that the trust, friendship and respect displayed by committed dogs and their owners is a quality needed in our society. The time spent by owners to bring their dogs to this level of training must be acknowledged. The intent of the original dog at large ordinance was to insure humane treatment of animals and protect people from wayward dogs