Dog Free Montini points

Points for a Dog Free Montini Preserve

Off-leash troubles

-0ne, 50% leash non-compliance is normal in Marin County parks, Rich Gibson, recently retired ranger

-Two, “The main problems have been with people allowing their dogs to run off-leash at the parks.” From the 4/10/13 Press Democrat, Derek Moore article about volunteer groups managing Jack London and Sugar Loaf State Parks:

-Three, these above points are constantly proven by dogs off leash in Bartholomew Park

-Four, off-leash dogs in the Mountain Cemetery are common, the signs have no effect

-Five, police have leash violation calls at lowest priority,

- Management Plan and Initial Study 11/2008

p.29 “The wildlife value of the Preserve is bolstered by its adjacency to the undeveloped Mountain Cemetery.”

-SOT to east, Mountain Cemetery to east, State Park to south, all prohibit dogs, allowing dogs is just asking for trouble

-Why introduce a situation known to cause a high percentage of problems? Why have laws that will have trouble being enforced, for situations already known to be problematic? The above cluster of points I’ve made seems to de facto relegate leash restriction rules as meaningless. The meaninglessness is supported by the dog guardians website as much saying that rules won’t be enforced so go ahead and walk them wherever anyway. I submit that if off leash violations cannot be managed properly, the allowing of dogs on Montini should not be allowed until these issues are effectively addressed.

Conservation Values

-the Conservaton Easement emphasizes preserving the natural environment over and over again; in the Easement, preserving natural resources takes priority over scenic values and recreation, recreation specifically comes in as the third priority

- the point of the Preserve is to emphasize natural values, not bring domestic values from home, the trail is not supposed to be an extension of town

- Issue of purpose of a nature preserve is not so that any coyotes won’t be disturbed, this is willful misreading of the point; the whole point of the preserve is for people to experience natural values; not allowing dogs is managing for qualities of solitude, quiet, chance to observe nature, which could just as well be wind, clouds, rustling grass.  

Environmental review by city

-since the Management Plan has to be consistent with the Conservation Easement, and it is the Management Plan that is being amended, too much contradiction with  Conservation Values stated in the Easement means logically that the Easement itself would have to be changed as well

-the Montini Vision Statement, Management Plan and Conservation Easement all assert Conservation Values clearly antithetical to allowing dogs

 -dog use does not reconcile with the language in the Conservation Easement

-dogs are a inappropriate land use not in line with Conservation Values principles laid out in above documents,

-all those Conservation Values cannot be defined and espoused and then mitigated, that would be blatant hypocrisy

Dogs disturb wildlife

-prey species are disturbed in particular, literature supports this

-fawning beds are noted as a special habitat on the Preserve

-ground nesting bird sites are also noted as special habitat on the Preserve

Dog waste

-no one wants it

-easier for people to leave it if it is hidden in high grass

-odor of dog waste disturbs prey animals

Low enforcement priority for police

-since off-leash issues are so prevalent and at the same time a low enforcement priority, it does not seem a wise planning choice to allow such a problematic situation to exist

-Tolay Lake, one strike and you are out, for off-leash violations

The Preserve is not a park

-the #1 priority in the Easement is protection of natural resources

-Dogs themselves are not users in the sense of land management, dogs don’t have rights to use like people do

-a preserve is a higher type of land use than a park

Montini Adjoins SOT, Mountain Cemetery and Vallejo Home State Park where dogs are already prohibited

-SOT was privately funded, to change conditions would be breach of trust with the founders, donors and stewards

-dogs are not allowed in any cemetery, see ‘dog waste’

-it makes sense to keep the whole Montini/ SOT trail system dog free, it is an easier management solution than trying to go half and half and then get into enforcement issues

-need for new signage; excess signage would detract from natural values of trails

Safe passage

-Montini trail not constructed for multiple use capacity, too narrow to permit safe passage of dogs and people without dogs

Risks and liabilities to hikers and joggers

- the city will  have increased risk by allowing dogs

Multiple use vs. Park Service level use

-dogs not allowed in national and state parks, dogs are allowed on multiple sue land; to what standard will OSD adhere? Highest or lowest?

-Conservation Easement Values seem to weight in on the high side

-If dogs allowed on trail, multiple use fudging and mitigating can give local dog owners their dog park as well

-see accompanying Multiple Use position paper

Compatibility Determination from Montini Management Plan Appendix D

-p. 40 “Hiking, nature observation and photography, interpretation, stewardship and environmental education are the only allowable public uses of the Preserve. Other public uses could be considered using a compatibility determination. (Appendix D)

-in Appendix D there nothing about dogs being a possible compatible use

- if dog use is inherently low impact, as dog users assert, why was it not considered as a possible compatible use in the first place?