Uncivil war breaks out on the South Burlington recreation path

I want to commend Nora Senecal for her timely, polite and well-reasoned letter, “Unleashed dogs remain problem in dog parks,” in the Other Paper’s Oct. 5 issue. I would like now to express a more visceral reaction to the suggestion of unleashing dogs on the rec path (trails and parks aside): Yikes!

I have a small dog that I walk regularly on the rec path. On at least four separate occasions I have had large, unleashed dogs jump up on me when I picked up my dog to keep him out of harm’s way and I had to kick the dogs off me. All four of the dog owners then yelled at me for kicking their dogs — who were jumping up on me to get at the dog in my arms.

More recently, a pit-bull-type dog tore across a field in Symanski Park so fast that I did not even have time to pick up my dog and then I had to dance between my chihuahua and a persistent pit bull trying to get at my dog until the owner came running up. She did not even have a leash on her and had to drag the dog away by his harness.

While the Committee on Common Areas for Dogs “recognize and respect the legitimate concerns regarding off-leash dogs,” one wonders just how tolerant they would be of the idea of unleashed dogs on the rec path if they were subject to this kind of behavior themselves. (“Committee creates survey on topic of unleashed dogs,” Sept. 21, 2023)

More disturbing, as pointed out by Senecal, was the biased nature of the questions on the survey being run by the committee. For example, one question on the survey asks if there should be off leash dogs:

• Allowed in public spaces, parks, trails and natural areas anytime.

• Located in a portion of public parks and natural areas.

• In specific dog parks, dog runs and exercise areas.

• In existing public parks and natural areas on specific days and specific hours.

None of these choices allow for the survey taker to indicate that off-leash dogs should only be allowed in fenced dog parks. The third choice comes closest to allowing such an opinion to surface but links it carefully with the vaguely worded “dog runs and exercise areas,” which really could amount to anything.

The rest of the choices assume that dogs should be off leash in some fashion. The whole leaning of the survey was to bolster the concept that dogs should be off leash in public areas. My concern is that the results of this survey will be used to persuade South Burlington residents that everyone is in favor of letting dogs off-leash everywhere, when, in fact, the survey was far from objective and actually prevented negative responses to the idea of unleashed dogs.

South Burlington now has two dog parks, one of them quite large. Burlington also has two large dog parks, one of them approximately 5 miles away. Currently, dogs run off-leash (illegally) at Hubbard Recreational Area off Spear Street, East Woods off Swift Street, and the University of Vermont cornfield below the corner of Swift and Spear streets.

Yet, this is not enough for those who cannot motivate themselves to take their dogs to a dog park. They must let their dogs run loose on the rec path as well. So, what would a decision to allow unleashed dogs on the rec path amount to?

For one thing, part of the rec path runs from Spear Street to Stonehedge Drive and then cuts off from Stonehedge Drive down to Route 7. This means that unleashed dogs along that route will spill into the Stonehedge condominiums along Stonehedge Drive.

This condo association does have a leash law and now it will have an ongoing and easily foreseeable conflict with the city over unleashed dogs from the rec path on Stonehedge Drive.

Also, walkers, joggers and bikers — not to mention small children — will now have to be prepared to do possible battle with unleashed dogs as they exercise. Those with small dogs, such as myself, will now have to walk armed with mace and a riding crop.

Will the city be immune to lawsuits resulting from dog bites since it has legalized the unleashing of dogs? That remains to be seen.

Finally, I object to the statement by the committee that the leash law is unenforceable. Obviously, if the city was willing to spend the money the law could be substantially enforced. Aside from that, the only protection I currently have on the rec path is the ability to tell people with unleashed dogs that South Burlington has a leash law. After doing so, people usually put their dogs on leashes. Simple.

Take that away and I am stuck with mace and a riding crop.

The idea that because the leash law cannot be enforced so, therefore it should go, is like saying that because people are still being killed by drunk drivers, we should obviously encourage more people to drink and drive. Not everyone who drinks and drives ends up killing people — some people drink and drive without hurting anyone — but it only takes one unfortunate accident for someone to end up dead.

In the same way, it only takes one irresponsible dog owner, who misjudges the character of their dog, to cause real pain to someone else, regardless of how many other dog owners can responsibly handle their off-leash dog.

Janet Franklin lives in South Burlington.