[MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

[LaNette Diaz]

I would like to weigh in on the dog discussion:

I walk my dog 5 days a week every day after work on Missoula conservation
lands. I love that Missuola has created the space for dogs to be off leash.
Dogs like people need exercise to stay healthy and happy. A tired dog is a
happy and obediant dog.

Over the approximately 260 days a year that I am out with my dog on Missoula
conservation lands I encounter the "not-so-friendly" dog about 3 times a
year. I encounter dogs that chase wildlife about 8 times a year.

On the flip-side I see hundreds of socially trained dogs that respect other
dogs and wildlife so much more than the negative of side. Punishing the
socially trained dogs, which out-weigh the "not-so-friendly" dog doesn't
seem right.

I support a the idea of voice restraint areas on conservation lands, with
the first 200 yards from the trailhead being onleash (this is were
encounters between dogs occur, because many dogs are territorial of their
space which is the vehicle they came in). Enforcing the 200 yard rule is
much easier and within Missoula's resources whereas, enforing that dogs stay
on leashes on all conservation lands would be difficult to enforce. I would
rather see a rule that can be enforced be applied, than a rule that punishes
so many good dogs and is hard to enforce.

Thanks for Listening,
LaNette
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Thompson, Ken <Ken.Thompson at mso.umt.edu>wrote:


>  *It is a shame that all dog owners get thrown together and stereotyped in

> these kind of debates.  And it isn't fair.  I appreciate your perspective

> Bob.  There are appropriate places and times for dogs off-leash.  We

> responsible and thoughtful dog owners have to deal with this and it gets

> truly old……*

>

>

>

> *From:* missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com [mailto:

> missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] *On Behalf Of *Marilyn Marler

> *Sent:* Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:58 AM

> *To:* missoulagov at cmslists.com

> *Subject:* Re: [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

>

>

>

> Serenity now.

>

>

>

>  ----- Original Message -----

>

> *From:* Bob Jaffe <BJaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us>

>

> *To:* missoulagov at cmslists.com

>

> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:00 PM

>

> *Subject:* [MissoulaGov] committee update 1-28-09

>

>

>

> Greetings,

>

> Dogs were on the agenda again this morning.  This time we were considering

> a proposal from the parks department to allow for the conservation lands to

> be designated as "voice restraint" areas.  Among the arguments for this

> change are this is already the common practice; most problems for staff

> revolve around human conflicts associated with enforcement rather than

> actual problems with dogs; dogs need places to run; the population likes

> walking with dogs off leash on conservation lands.

>

> Some of the arguments against the change are that dogs are ill-mannered

> beasts no matter how much the owner claims they are under control; they

> chase and sometimes kill wildlife; they fight; they harass other people;

> some dog owners are irresponsible.

>

> There were a few other clean up items in the proposal but the conservation

> land leash law was the meat of the discussion. We moved to set a public

> hearing to let the public weigh in again before making a decision. Based on

> the tone of the discussion the council will vote against allowing dogs off

> leash on the conservation lands.

>

> I am in support of the staff proposal that they should be allowed off leash

> except in particularly sensitive areas or for temporary periods when needed

> due to wildlife movement. I guess I see the conservation lands like the

> north hills and Mount Sentinel as part of the human environment. Like the

> "mixing zone" in the river below the sewage plant. It is sort of natural but

> the human impact is acknowledged and accepted to a limited degree.

>

> I imagine Marilyn, who is our Lorax of Mt. Sentinel, may be horrified by

> that statement. But I think this human (and our dogs) impact on the

> conservation lands is part of the reason we need to keep up such a sustained

> effort to preserve and maintain their natural condition. It may sound like a

> contradiction but we don't want conservation lands just to look at.  Clearly

> the best thing we could do to protect those lands is to close them to

> people. But we paid all that money for them because we want to walk around

> up there. So it's not ideal from a conservation perspective, but as a

> community asset I think we need to put up with the dogs.

>

>

>

> In conservation committee we discussed the update to the master parks plan.

> I confess to being a bit distracted today so some of the events from the day

> are faded now.  My comments had to do with pocket parks and Ward six parks.

> These last few years the parks department has frowned upon small parks. They

> are more expensive to maintain. They would rather just get money from

> developers that can go toward enhancing the larger neighborhood parks.  But

> I like pocket parks. There are all sorts of places you can make them happen

> and they can be really nice.  So I was asking for some reconsideration of

> that policy. On some subdivisions they could make sense if they are to be

> maintained by the home owners association instead of the City. Pam brought

> up the example of little Mccormick park along railroad street. I was

> actually thinking more like the little thing at the end of Holmes street by

> the greenway trail.

>

> Regarding ward six, we know where the large land areas are that could

> someday become a park. In particular there is the forest service property.

> This is seriously underutilized property in the middle of town. Eventually

> they are going to sell it.  We should be making plans for how to obtain it.

>

>

>

> There was no PAZ today since it was time for our quarterly joint meeting

> with the county commissioners to discuss the interlocal agreement for the

> office of planning and grants. We graciously give up our time slot for this

> meeting every three months.

>

> We heard another pitch from the crime victim advocates office. They were in

> a fiscal crisis last year when some funding did not renew. They managed to

> pull out of it this year but have tapped pretty much every resource

> available. In a year or two they will be in trouble again. They want us to

> start thinking about it now while it is not an emergency.  Maybe Obama will

> save us with new money from on high.

>

> We also discussed the update to the growth policy. We have run into a

> problem with all the plans we have developed. They are supposed to get

> updated regularly. If we were going to do them all on a five year cycle it

> would require OPG to update ten plans per year.  That would require at least

> a few more FTE's. So we need a new approach.

>

> In regards to the growth policy Roger suggested we consider a whole

> different model. In some communities they have the thing down to a single

> poster. It succinctly states the goals, objectives and policies. Then they

> have electronic data with all the supporting material. The electronic data

> is constantly updated.

>

> The way we do it is we publish a big book that represents the way things

> are at a certain moment in time and then it is instantly outdated.

>

>

>

> In A&F we appointed a couple of more people to the public art board. We

> also accepted a grant from FWP to build a trail connection up in the south

> hills that Jeff Stevens had worked hard to secure.

>

>

>

> In public works we bought a couple of vehicles. Just to make sure we didn't

> fuss about the big pickup truck they combined it with the purchase of a

> Prius.  The Prius is for the fire department for when the go on road trips

> to training and conferences and the truck is for parking maintenance.

>

>

>

> We finished the day with Committee of the Whole.  We had the

> administration's legislative update. Ross Best came to the Monday meeting

> and he was  here today to complain about the public notice and involvement

> for the City's lobbying efforts.  He heard that a SharePoint system had been

> developed for us to track bills, get updates from the lobbyist and comment.

> He lamented over how this is all private and should be open to the public.

> He complained that all the public knows is the two words on the agenda

> "Legislative Update." There is no other additional info to know what is

> going on. Up until a couple of days ago this is the way it was for us too.

> We would see the two words on the agenda and the Mayor would come and give a

> verbal report. Other than whatever notes we took we would have nothing.

>

>

>

> The new system is a little better but it is still pretty clunky. The way

> SharePoint has been implemented it is kind of like a really low end blogging

> platform. Each bill is like a discussion thread and then there are some

> comments. They are working on a way to make it all publicly accessible. All

> that is really needed is the list of bills the City is taking a position on.

> I haven't really seen a whole lot in the comments that are valuable. The

> stuff from the lobbyist is generally comments like "I met with so and so

> today to discuss this." Not really any useful insight into the status or

> process. I'm hoping there is actually something going on there for all the

> money we paid.

>

>

>

> The other issue we discussed was the notification to the public for the

> zoning rewrite.  State law requires we run a legal ad and have a meeting

> that is open to the public.  Of course that does not meet Missoula standards

> for transparent government.  The planning office has held endless public

> meetings and this whole zoning rewrite process has had tons of press but

> there is a faction that believes that if only the community knew what was

> going on they would come unglued.  So in the tireless effort to provide

> opportunity to become civically engaged we discussed what kind of mailing

> could be sent to every property owner in Missoula.  The idea is that we

> could compose something on a half page size post card that would outline all

> the substantive changes and let folks know how to participate. It will

> probably cost around $15,000.  Next week OPG will come back with a sample of

> the mailing. There is some concern about the content. Some of the folks are

> convinced the sky is falling and the fact that we are not ringing the alarm

> bells is all the more evidence that we are complicate with the conspiracy.

> Some of us disagree with that opinion. So it is important how this thing

> gets written.

>

>

>

> Once again I thank you for your interest and your indulgence of my rant. I

> apologize in advance to those I have offended and for any inaccuracies or

> omissions.

>

>

>

>

>

> Bob Jaffe

>

> Missoula City Council, Ward 3

>

> bjaffe at ci.missoula.mt.us

>

> 406-728-1052

>  ------------------------------

>

> _______________________________________________

> -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

>

> Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But

> posts to this list may be entered into the public record.

> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org

> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com<http://www.cedarmountainsoftware.com/>

> .

>

>

> _______________________________________________

> -----Please delete extra content when replying to messages------

>

> Note: This list is NOT an official service of the City Of Missoula. But

> posts to this list may be entered into the public record.

> Subscribe or view archives at Missoulagov.org

> List Serve hosting provided by www.CedarMountainSoftware.com<http://www.cedarmountainsoftware.com/>.

>

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090129/9800ad70/attachment.htm>