Opinion: A compromise for dogs at Upper Truckee Marsh
Publisher’s note: This is an open letter to the staff and board of the California Tahoe Conservancy and for all those concerned about access to the Upper Truckee Marsh.
By Anthony Cupaiuolo
Due to a ban by the California Tahoe Conservancy board, no dogs are allowed (leashed or otherwise) in the Upper Truckee Marsh through July 31. This three-month closure is the first of its kind for the marsh, and there is talk of banning dogs permanently from this area. This would be a tragic outcome for residents and visitors to this area.
The reason for the closure is to protect wildlife and nesting grounds in the marsh – a commendable goal. The marsh is a special area and it deserves special protection. I’m a volunteer videographer for Lake Tahoe Wildlife Care, where my wife, Karen, is a board member and also a volunteer – so we’re keenly aware of the needs of wildlife in our region.
People allowing dogs to run off-leash led to the ban of canines at Upper Truckee Marsh. Photo/LTN
Unfortunately, this closure does little to protect wildlife while punishing responsible dog owners. The board doesn’t want dogs off-leash chasing wildlife and disturbing nesting grounds. Neither do we. But, dogs already aren’t allowed off-leash in the meadow. So, what we have is an education and enforcement issue.
Additionally, it doesn’t address other irresponsible behaviors that are harmful to wildlife, such as those who use the marsh to fly loud gas-powered radio-controlled planes. Or let their cats outside, free to stalk and kill small birds and animals. Or those who use the area as a late-night party spot. (I’ve even seen people drag some pretty big power generators out there for music.) And although the meadow is a great place to teach kids about wildlife, they can be pretty disruptive themselves – ever seen a 5 year old go running up to a bunch of ducks just to see them scatter? Again, education and enforcement (and more on both in a moment).
Currently, responsible dog owners like my family are unable to enjoy the beauty of our nearby treasure for three prime months of the year (and possibly permanently). My wife and I have a small child and my parents live next door. If we want to enjoy an off-pavement walk with our Lab (also a member of our family), we have to load up two cars and drive somewhere.
Yes, there are other areas dog owners can take their dogs for walks – but none is as beautiful or as accessible for young and old family members as this meadow. It’s as if you were told you couldn’t go to Kirkwood, but only Boreal on a powder day. Why should this beautiful area be reserved for just a few? This meadow should be open to everyone who respects it.
Clearly, denial of access is unfair. But there is another side – one with which I empathize. The residents who live on or nearby the meadow’s access points have had to contend with disrespectful people who allow their dogs to roam freely and don’t pick up after them. They’ve had to deal with those who use the trails to access the beach for late night parties. This, also, is unfair (although not connected with the dog/wildlife issue).
There is a solution that I see as a middle ground. Last month, I had the opportunity to voice my concerns about the closure to Ray Lacey and Dana Dapolito, deputy director and associate environmental planner, respectively, for the Conservancy. During that conversation the idea of a permitting process emerged.
Although we didn’t cover the specifics, this is how it might work: Those who wish to walk their dogs (on a leash) would have to go the Conservancy’s office to get a permit to walk their dog in the meadow. During this process, they would learn about the sensitive nature of the marsh and the reasons why keeping dogs on leash are necessary. Those with permits would be able to walk their dogs in the meadow. If you are caught walking your dog in the meadow without a permit, even if it’s on leash, you would be fined. If you have a permit and you let your dog off-leash, you would be fined.
Once the word gets out about this process, there’s every reason to believe we can accomplish the goals of protecting the marsh while allowing access to those who are responsible and respectful of this local treasure. Of course, dog owners who want this area to be open to dogs off-leash will be disappointed – so might residents who live on the marsh who wish to keep this area as private as possible for themselves. But for the vast majority of us, this is a solution that works.
Anthony Cupaiuolo is an Al Tahoe area homeowner.
I agree with your sentiments completely. You express the problem very well.
Unfortunately, your solution does not address the enforcement issue. The vast majority of folk do not leash their dogs in the marsh though it is already the rule. Why would this change with a permitting system?
The only solution I can think of is to develop a Citizen Watch system. But rule enforcement would be uncomfortable role for me.
I like the permit idea. I also agree with the comments regarding children, parties and homeless people. I also live and care about the meadow, but just targeting dog owners is unfair. Put the kids on a leash.
Dextra: With the ban in effect, enforcement has been stepped up this year (by El Dorado Country Animal Control, and at least one additional agency). And, based on the comments at yesterday’s Conservancy Board Meeting by those that live on the Meadow, it’s working. They’re seeing a lot less dogs (leashed or otherwise) in the Meadow.
What we need to do is convert that enforcement to checking dog owners to see if they have permits (once such a process is in place).
Moreover, through the permitting process, people would have to read/sign information about why they have to have their down on leash in the first place. This education on the sensitivities of the Meadow should, on its own, help with the problem – a lot of people just don’t realize how sensitive an area it is.
I hope that makes sense/answers your quesion. Thanks for reading the column. Anthony
Dextra, I forgot to mention – I agree that people need to be more diligent in community enforcement. When dogs are allowed back in the meadow on August 1st, us responsible dog owners will need to be more vocal and let those few irresponsible ones that we see know that their actions could ruin it for the rest of us.
Responsible dog owners also pick up after their dogs, moreso than the partiers and homeless people (bums) that leave thier trash and toilet paper in the meadow.
The new rule has benefited East Cove. The trail isn’t a minefield of dog poop like it was in the snow. I’ve enjoyed a few walks without the eyesore of piles, and glad to see people actually using leashes on their pups. Better awareness signs posting the rule might help the meadow?
Good luck putting leashes on the coyotes that use that area as their daily buffet. Or getting them to apply for a permit. But otherwise I like this thinking outside the bureaucratic box.
Who’s going to pick up (poop) and or fine the coyotes when they chase and kill wildlife.
I’m thinking coyotes are more discreet, cause I only see poop visible when dogs are around.
Just banning dogs completely is such a cop-out. I’m with you, Anthony.
This is about a community acting like a community and policing itself.
With a little extra work, people around the meadow, responsible dog owners and law enforcement can make the meadow into anything we want it to be.
Having a permit makes it official — and that’s necessary — but what will really make it happen is walking up to an irresponsible (or uninformed) user of the meadow, introducing yourself and politely leting her or him know that there’s a rule we have about not letting dogs off-leash. There’s a good reason for it and we all want to do our part to keep it open for everyone.
I think 95% of the people will respond well to that — and the other 5% probably would violate a completely ban as well …
Walk quietly,carry a big stick,try stay out fist fights and pit bull attacks.
There’s so much bigger ,better ,places to take yourself and pup and it’s out in the large forest where you damn near never see anybody but pot growers ,homeless.THEY COULD CARE LESS.
I’m so glad Anthony Cupaiuolo proposed this compromise, and thank you, Lake Tahoe News, for publishing it.
I visit South Lake Tahoe in the summers and have enjoyed renting in the Al Tahoe community in large part due to its proximity to the meadow, where I walk or run with my dog (on-leash) each morning. If that were no longer possible, I would seriously consider renting some place else.
I do hope the Conservancy board and other public officials seriously consider this workable compromise. It would help to entice respectful, community-minded residents and visitors.
It’s great to see so many comments. For anyone mentioning picking up poop; that’s essential. All dog owners need to do it. When we see someone who isn’t, we need to speak up (politely).
Clear Water, sure, we live in Tahoe. There are lots of beautiful places to talk our dogs. But, the Marsh is gorgeous. And, for many of us, it’s the closest place we have to access an off-pavement walk and experience the splendor that we have in Tahoe. In addition to just visiting the Marsh for the beauty, it’s incredibly convenient for those of us living nearby. If I don’t have an hour or more to get lost in the woods because of work, kids, life, etc., then getting to Marsh with my dog is a wonderful thing – that I’m now missing out on.
And, as I touched on in the column. There are few place in Tahoe that are as accessible for families of two or three generations. Everyone, young and old can enjoy the easy walk in the Marsh. But, now we’re loading up 2 cars to drive somewhere to walk as a family. That’s just not right.
Christine, thanks for sharing – the negative economic impact of the dog closure isn’t something I’d really considered. That’s something that’s always relevant for an area like our’s that’s so dependent on tourism – and even more-so now in these economic times.
Thank you for your excellent suggestion, Anthony. As someone who lives very close to the meadow I have spent many hours walking my dog through there. I have never once seen any enforecement of the leash law, though, so I feel nobody took it very seriously. I would like to see the conservancy put up some serious signage outling the fines for not leashing your animal. If that does not work, I would have no problem with getting a permit. That is rather difficult for our out of town visitors, though.
Some vacation home owners leave beach passes for guest visitors to use during their stay. If the meadow permits became a reality, perhaps home owners could do the same? That way, the renter would still be held responsible, but without going through the process (especially if visiting for only a week or less).
Of course, the home owner should include information about the importance of protecting wildlife along with all the other Tahoe-related information that’s always available. Or make adhering to the permit rules part of the lease. Either way, it’s probably do-able — and as I think someone else said, it’s really about promoting education and responsibility.
Most people, once informed that the meadow needs our protection and dogs will be banned if rules aren’t followed, would be more than happy to do their part.
I wonder about the people who live on the meadow and have massive flood lights that project outwards, well beyond their property. People don’t think.
Anyways, the largest meadow impact will never go away, the Tahoe Keys. People who live there should not be allowed to have any access to the meadow. They already destroyed it.
Thank you Amelia. In addition to Christine’s suggestion, one thought I had that could work for visitors would be to have a temporary permit that people could fill out and print from the Conservancy’s website.
tcr, I agree that the largest negative meadow impact was the Keys, but most of the people that live there had nothing to do with its development, so I don’t want to penalize them – I just don’t want to be penalized myself.
And, I do find it ironic that you can walk your dog on-leash on the east cove trail in the Keys, but not on “our” side of the Meadow.
They still choose to live there. And if they all left the property values would tank and make the restoration of the largest watershed in the Sierra possible.
Bongo, would YOU walk away from what is at least a half million dollar investment for each of those folks? Come on, the self righteousness is getting a bit absurd.
I would never live there in the first place.
I appreciate the comments, but let’s try to stay on topic. The Keys is what it is. I wish it hadn’t been developed, but there isn’t anything we can do about it at this point…And if it is a cause you want to take up, cool…but I’d like to focus on what the column is about if possible.
What we can have some influence on is whether responsible dog owners will be allowed to walk their dogs where they should have every right to do so. And, whether, we want to turn away visitors to the area that stay on or near the Meadow and will stop doing so if they can’t enjoy the meadow as a family as they’ve been able to in years past.
I remember when we could take our dogs just about anywhere. Then slowly the rules changed due to those dog owners that are irresponsible. Age old story with everything. If some owners were smarter than their wards then this wouldn’t happen. Frankly, I’d rather step in dog doodie than on a broken bottle. At least you can wash off the poop and move on.
“But, now we’re loading up 2 cars to drive somewhere to walk as a family. That’s just not right.”….and one solution to that problem is leave the dog at home and go enjoy the meadow. who is in control of your life, you or your dog? :-)!
i question how realistic it is to politely (or otherwise) approach an individual whose dog is off leash. i tried that ONCE with someone i knew at cove east and she turned into a screaming maniac! never fails to amaze me to watch people walk right past the leash signs with their leashes in hand (but not attached to their pooch)…their point is???
NH; No, my dog is not “in control” of my or my family’s life. But, we actually enjoy spending time outdoors in beautiful places with our dog. I know, that just sounds crazy, right?! But, yes, we’re a crazy Tahoe family, than enjoys walking our dog on-leash, and cleaning up after him, in our near-by meadow. Silly us.
We all have busy lives. We don’t get as much time as we’d like to go for walks as a family and to take the dog for walks (which, if you’re a dog owner, you have to do). So, yes, it is an inconvenience that we can no longer accomplish both with one near-by walk.
And, I’m sorry to hear about your one experience talking to an irresponsible dog owner, but please don’t extrapolate and assume because of your one experience that this would be the case with every dog owner.
Education and enforcement. Throw in the permit process and it’s just that simple. There’s no need to punish responsible dog owners.
My last few walks in the meadow near my home were interesting…each time I found little baggies tied with a knot with dog poo in them. I’d rather see the dog piles than plastic bags full of dog poo laying around the forest/meadow. No kidding, I’ve picked up 3 this week alone. What’s that all about?! (Yes, I’m a dog owner.)
That’s a shame that people are taking the time to pick up after their dog, but still leaving it out there. Personally, I think that’s better than just not picking it up at all. I’d rather pick up someone’s baggie for them (even though I shouldn’t have to do that) than step in or have to pick up their dog’s poo myself.
Sometimes I’ll leave a baggie adjacent to the trail to pick up on my way out (if there are no garbage cans in the direction I’m heading). It’s not sounding like this is your experience, but perhaps you got there “early” and those baggies would’ve been picked up by their owners on the way back?