What’s reasonable?
What’s fair-minded?
Since a presentation in April of 2018, during which this photo was offered as descriptive of the “impact” that dogs have on public open spaces, Conservation Commission members have not responded to public comments asking that they acknowledge the folly in their
single-minded focus on dogs, because…
My Dog Didn’t Do That…
In fact, over the last year, we tried in vain
to make Conservation Commission members acknowledge that “impact,” and indeed, damage and destruction of public open space areas, often—
if not generally—has little if anything to do with dog “traffic.”
After all, for example…
we have photos
of this same area, which,
even two days after a storm: Those benches
were still partially submerged…
The contention that dogs lowered the entirety of the landscape “grade” at this location, and very, very carefully and specifically so,
around the footings of these benches… is patently absurd.
Dogs didn’t lower the entirety of the landscape neatly and very specifically around the footings of this bench…
Walking bridge over “the Cascades” upstream of benches…
Upstream of the bench footings supposedly “…exposed by continual dog traffic.”
Pedestrian bridge over “The Cascades,” still swollen 2 days afterward, with debris demonstrating that water actually rose to and went over the bridge itself: upstream of the bench footings supposedly “…exposed by continual
dog traffic.”
Fair-minded analysis is lacking…
Fair-minded analysis
would incorporate awareness of changes wrought by “global warming.”
Many of the Town’s parcels have changed dramatically, in only a short time:
Mountain Laurel Open Space Area, in less than a decade (left: Asclepias syriaca)
Click the image to view the document