Parley's Historic Nature Park/Off Leash Dog Park Proposal Comments:
From Sugar House
January 7, 2007
Hello Mr. Carlson, I just wanted to email you regarding the off-leash issue in Parley's Canyon/Tanner Park and voice my support in favor of keeping the entire area off-leash for dogs. I've been a resident of Salt Lake City for 16 years now and a home owner in District 5 for 6. I am also a member of FIDOS (Friends Intersested in Dogs and Open Spaces).
First of all let me express my admiration to your dedication to the community you live in. I am a member and resident of ELPCO and I know how difficult it is to fuel the fires of community involvement. If I could have a moment of your time I'd like to express my opinion on an issue that is very important to me.
One of the things that makes Salt Lake City such an enviable place to live is the easy access to open spaces. As a dog owner, the need for such areas is critical and much of my time outside is spent with my 6 year old Border Collie, Asia. Unless you are a dog owner it is difficult to understand how important it is to let a dog off leash. Asia absolutely loves it and the joy she displays romping around Parley's Canyon/Tanner Park, Memory Grove or Herman Franks Park is incalculable and brings a measure of happiness to my day as well.
There are already so many restrictions for dogs in Salt Lake due to the watershed issue. This limits the presence of dogs to a mere handful of places and off-leash areas to far fewer. We need more off-leash areas not less Mr. Carlson. Just go to any off-leash area and see how many people bring their dogs. The demand is great and is ever increasing. If your council advocates reducing these areas by restricting off-leash use in Parley's Canyon/Tanner Park you will merely be concentrating dog use. That will over-burden the remaining areas. Herman Franks Park is a perfect example of an overburdened dog park. That ridiculously small area is used by hundreds, literally hundreds, of people and their dogs every day. Meanwhile the adjoining baseball fields that represent at least 80% of this park are used for just a small fraction of that time. If you look at those fields today, or tomorrow or next week or next month you will see that they are vacant and unused while dozens of people and their dogs at every hour of the day are packed into a small fenced off area at the end of the park. I ask you. Is this a wise use of our communities limited open spaces? Now, to add insult to injury, one of these areas is threatened to be reduced!
Mr. Carlson, I would ask that you strongly consider the needs of dog owners in your area and realize that the complaints to restrict off-leash use are coming from a small group of individuals that are at best, reacting to the concentration of use in off-leash areas. Dog ownership is growing in Salt Lake and the needs of dog owners and their pets will always be at issue unless adequate spaces are provided for them. This proposal to limit off-leash use in Parley's Canyon/Tanner Park will merely exacerbate this problem.
Sincerly, T.G. Salt Lake City, Utah
January 7, 2007
Dear Members of the Sugarhouse Community Council,
Last night I attended the Council's monthly meeting and participated in the discussion on Parley's Historic Nature Park. I am writing to let you know how disappointed I am in my Community Council's actions.
As I stated at the meeting, I am a resident of Sugarhouse (Dillworth) and a business owner in Nibley. I am also a Director of Millcreek FIDOS and have been active in Parley's since we gathered signatures for the original petition to the City (130 City resident signatures - only 25 were required).
I was informed before the meeting that Nancy von Allmen 'warned' you that FIDOS would mob your Council meeting with 'FIDOS members'. She herself has made several requests that FIDOS members not speak at Canyon Rim's Community Council unless they lived in Canyon Rim. So, respectfully, we requested that ONLY Sugarhouse residents attend your meeting. In return, those opposed to Parley's off leash designation, were almost exclusively from Canyon Rim. Not only were they not Sugarhouse residents, they were not Salt Lake City residents. In the meantime, at least 80% of the people who spoke in favor of the off leash area were Sugarhouse residents and 99% were City residents. I was appalled that you as a Council adamantly spoke against the decision of the Mayor's office and against the constituents you are supposed to represent. As an additional insult, you voted to give a non City resident on ONE side of the issue an extra 5 minutes to talk because she did not use her 2 minutes wisely. This was outrageous.
Next, I feel that you as a Council made a decision based on very few facts. The Mayor's office has a full report that includes recommendations from Animal Control, the Sheriff's department, the Parks department and a study done by University Students. All evidence collected points to Parley's working well as an off leash area. This is why the Mayor supports it. Compromise comes in more forms than just giving up access to space. Dog owners, as a user group, have more responsibilities than ANY other user if they want access to an area. And, we helped write the law this way. We agreed to take legal guardianship of this area and any area where we request off leash status. Our obligations are limited to 2 education days a year and keeping the park resonably clean, our actions have gone FAR beyond that. Building boardwalks, diverting water from trails (to protect those trails from erosion), pulling thistle (for those of you that do not know, thistle is a noxious weed that would grow out of control in this area if we were not there digging it up), holding additional education days, requesting enforcement of the on leash status of the parking lot, working with the parks department to pull garbage that kids and families leave in the stream while 'shooting the tube', and on and on and on. This is not 'expected' behavior as Nancy puts it. Well, we expect it of ourselves, we want this park to be beautiful. However, it is well above and beyond what anyone else expected and THAT is our compromise. With 98% of parks 'on leash', compromising any section of this area is unacceptable.
Is there work to be done, of course. But, take a walk through Liberty Park or Sugarhouse Park. You will find more litter, more crime and more problems than are created by dogs and their owners in Parley's. Making Parley's an offcial off leash area is a step towards solving problems, not creating them. Official off leash status is a tool, giving us 'ownership', responsibilities and empowering us to make a difference.
C.
January 8, 2007
i understand there is a movement to restrict off-leash privileges to a very small area of parley's gulch -i am a regular user of this area with my dogs - i drive all the way from sandy to do so - the only other accessible area is mill creek canyon which has only an every other day off-leash provision
along the wasatch front, there are many places where dogs are prohibited and few places where dogs are allowed off-leash - historically, parley's gulch has not been a grime destination for non-dog owners or other nature enthusiasts as there are many other canyons and trails with much more to offer - however, now that there is a potential to have parley's on permanent off leash area, a small group of bird and others have "miraculously" re-discovered that this area is abundant in history and wild life that has been endangered by dogs
as long as owners pick up after their dogs, dogs have no more impact on parley's gulch than people (who picks up the droppings from deer, birds, and other wild creatures) - people scare wildlife as much as dogs do (and i have seen far more wildlife in other places than in parley's gulch)
i would venture to guess that few if any of the group looking to restrict dog privileges and "protect" the area in question are dog owners - let's face it, there are people such as theses who just plain do not like dogs and use any guise possible to restrict dog access to outdoor areas
please do not pander to this group - and please do not follow the red herring they are presenting to restrict parley's gulch off-leash privileges
J.P. sandy, utah
January 8, 2007
Dear council members:
As a Salt Lake City resident and non-dog owner, I would like to communicate my support for maintaining the "off leash" status for the park in Parleys Canyon. Even without a dog, I have visited the park numerous times over the past year and enjoy the camaraderie and community feeling that is developed by the dogs and owners who frequent the area. It is a place that families feel safe and in which a sense of community is fostered.
I hope you will consider keeping the park "off leash." It serves the community well.
Thank you, S.F. near Sugarhouse
January 8, 2007
FIDOs has worked extermely hard this past year to make Parleys Dog Park a better place. As an avid dog walker I can attest to these positive changes in the canyon. It is a much cleaner nicer place than it was a year ago. Please don't allow this park to be taken away from dogs. It is one of the few if not the only place of its kind for these animals and their responsible owners to walk "off leash". I am a Sugarhouse property owner and want my voice heard! Sincerely, J.H.
January 8, 2007
I am a neighbor of the Tanner park, Parleys Canyon dog park. As a senior citizen, I really enjoy walking with my dog in that beautiful area. He and I both enjoy the socialization with other dogs and owners we meet there. I often have my grandc hildren walk with me. It would be very sad for all of us not to have this opportunity. Thank you for taking my thoughts and feelings into consideration, K.C.
January 8, 2007
Dear Soren Simonsen, Chair Philip Carlson, and other Council Members:
As a dog owners, homeowners, taxpayers, and voters, in Salt Lake City, we are writing to ask you to continue the off-leash policy in Tanner Park without restrictions. We are responsible dog owners who uses this park weekly. It is a great resource to our community, one that makes Salt Lake stand out above others as being great. It is places like this that make us the number one city to live in by Outside magazine. We have a great quality of life here because of places like Tanner Park. Tanner should be made an off-leash park permanently.
Please consider that there is a very large group of people who go to Tanner park with their dogs (and vote). Please consider our interest fairly, and give our point of view some thought. ALL council members should take the opportunity to tour the area with FIDOS to hear our side.
Instead of taking away the park from us, the council should consider working with the dog owner's groups to mitigate potential problem areas. We are not interested in a compromise that will take away our park.
This is the most important issue that the council considers, that we care about, and we will continue to vote for candidates who support off-leash areas such as Tanner. Thank you Soren Simonsen, for taking a tour with FIDOS!
Thank you for your time and consideration in this manner.
Sincerely,
M.&L.J.
SLC, UT
January 8, 2007
Good afternoon.
I am not great with words, so I will keep my comments brief.
Please make Parley’s Gulch off leash. It is an absolute wonderful beautiful place to take my pups. The walk relaxes me and the pups love it! Not only do the dogs get to socialize, but so do I. A group of us walk together for exercise. And seeing all the dogs brings smiles to our faces. I know of two people who when they are sad walk down there. Why? Because seeing those pups having such a good time reminds them of the simple joys in life and brings them out of sadness to joy.
Thank you for taking the time to read my email.
Thank you, A.T.
January 8, 2007
Dear Mr. Carlson,
Please help keep the Parleys Nature Reserve an off-leash area. Since getting my dog two months ago, I have visited the off-leash area everyday. I have noticed how responsible the dog owners have been. I am impressed with how nice the area has stayed considering the amount of use it has each day. This unique area allows my dog to socialize and get the exercise she needs. I also enjoy and count on the exercise I get.
Please help the many people and dogs who get so much joy from this wonderful area.
Thank you, Katie E. Goldman
SLC, UT
"Worrying does not empty tomorrow of it's troubles, It empties today of its strength."
January 8, 2007
Hi Philip and Soren,
Just wanted to send a note to thank you both for the support of the Fido's group in helping us maintain the status of the Gully at Tanner Park. I was at the meeting last week for the Sugarhouse Community Council and want to comment on the meeting. All of those against the park being off leash were actually Canyon Rim Residents, while those for the park were exclusively sugarhouse residents.
Regardless, the park is one of the only places salt lake dog owners can go and walk dogs off leash. There are the local parks throughout the city, but those consist of a piece of grass in a fence. If this park is taken away, there is simply no where else to go. None of the canyons are off leash full time, even the foothills above the University are on leash areas. Given that, there is simply no where else to go. This is the only place dog owners have the ability to really exercise and socialize their dogs off leash. Most of the people that use the park have dogs that simply don't get exercise on leash, they're much too active and need a place to run.
Thank you for listening, and all your help.
P.W.
January 8, 2007
Dear Council Member, About 4 months ago I purchased a new home at 2842 S 2475 E within the Millcreek Township of Canyon Rim. As you know, this is within 5 minutes walk of the Parley's Off-Leash Dog Area. A big part of my purchase decision was the fact that there was such an area in close proximity.
I've lived in the 84109 zip code for most of my life. During my childhood we would occasionally go down into this area but we rarely had any reason to do so. Now I walk my dog down in this area almost every day. It is extremely convenient to have a place where I can walk my dog a long distance (several miles) without ever being close to a car that could potentially hit us.
Since I have begun walking in this area, I have seen many people using the park regularly (rarely did I see people in the area prior to it becoming a dog park). 99% of the people I see seem to be conscientious and pick up after their dogs or even keep them on leash or muzzled if they think their dog is any threat to others. I rarely hear any dogs barking even on weekends when there are close to 100 dogs in the area at the same time.
The members of Millcreek Fidos have been amazing. I regularly discover that the bag I have collected my dog's waste in on the way down into the area has been picked up by one of these people to ensure that it is not left in the area. For a dog park, there has been surprisingly little fecal material anywhere visible. When there has been substantial ice on the ground, I have seen members breaking up the ice to make it safer to walk in the area.
From my recollections of the area prior to it being a dog park, I remember frequent trash and empty bottles of beer scattered throughout the area. Now there is none of that.
Please follow the recommendation of the Mayor to make the entire area a permanent off-leash dog park where responsible pet owners can take their dogs for car free exercise.
Thank you for your time,
Sincerely, Dr. B.K. Canyon Rim Township
January 8, 2007
I REGULARLY SPEND AT LEAST 3 DAYS A WEEK WALKING MY DOGS AND PICKING UP AFTER THEM IN TANNER PARK. I HAVE FOR OVER 12 YEARS. I HAVE OBSERVED FOXES, FISH, AND GOLDEN FINCHES IN THE SUMMER REGULARLY.
JORDAN RIVER IS AN EXAMPLE OF EXTREME DESTRUCTION OF HABITAT BY HUMANS AND DON’T FORGET PIG FARMERS.
THE ROAD IN THIS PARK HAS BEEN COMPACTED AS SUCH BY CARS. IT WILL TAKE 200 YEARS OF NO CAR USE TO RESTORE IF IT IS POSSIBLE. HUMANS AND PIONEERS ESTABLISHED THE SAME TRAILS BEING USED BY FREQUENT PARK ENTHUSIASTS WITH DOGS IE: THE VAST MAJORITY, UNTIL THIS DAY.
ESTABLISH A FEE FOR PARK USE AND USE THAT FOR PLANTING MORE NATIVE TREES AND KEEPING THE KIDS AND ALL THEIR CONSTRUCTION SUPPLIES FOR RAFTING AND DAMMING THE RIVER OUT.
IF YOU TAKE AWAY THIS FEE BASE OF A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU ARE MISSING OUT ON GREAT OPPORTUNITIES ON WORKING WITH HIGHLY MOTIVATED PEOPLE TO KEEP THIS AS A PLACE FOR DOGS TO WALK FREE.
YOURS SINCERELY,
L.S.
January 8, 2007
Hello.
I am a Canyon Rim resident in favor of continuing the off-leash status at Parley's. I hope my opinion will carry the same weight as the opinions of the handful of very vocal objectors who also live outside Salt Lake City limits in Canyon Rim.
Parley's has clearly been a huge success as an off-leash park during the one-year trial period. Millcreek FIDOS kept its end of the bargain and then some. The park has not deteriorated during the trial period. Rather, it has been improved. But, more important than their work at planting trees and improving trails, it is evident that FIDOS has done an excellent job of educating the public on following the rules for leashing and clean-up. The park is much cleaner than it was previously and people seem to abide by the rules for keeping the dogs leashed outside the officially designated areas. Everything went right. Why is the council now reconsidering?
Salt Lake City's Public Services Director Rick Graham had it right. The off-leash trial at Parley's was indeed "a bold step, but a needed step". It was also a step forward. Stepping backward would be a mistake. I urge the city council to acknowledge the success of the off-leash trial and to vote accordingly, in line with the wishes of your constituents - in favor of keeping the off-leash status.
Sincerely, N.W.
January 8, 2007
Hi Philip,
I appreciate you taking the time to read my email. I own two large dogs, and am the mother of a small child. As a stay at home mom, I find the value Parleys off-leash park provides as priceless. It is very difficult to manage a small child and find the time to walk my dogs on leash. Parleys is right up the road from my house, making it a very convienent location, and ideal for me to walk with my child, while letting my dogs off leash. My dogs, myself, and my child all benefit from this park and get more excercise because of this freedom.
We recently moved here from Montana, where open space is endless. It was very hard for my dogs and myself to acclimate from always being off leash, in an unfenced yard, to the small backyards of Sugarhouse, and the fact that many places restrict, or prohibit dog activity. Owning dogs is becoming more and more difficult as City's grow, and I realize many people do not like dogs roaming free. However, by setting aside places like Parleys Canyon, where people know in advance of the off-leash rules, it encourages people to get their dogs out, and makes it easier for us to excercise them. I have no doubt that the number of homeless animals would decrease if it were easier for owners to take them places. Please, don't limit that or take it away.
I also walk in Sugarhouse park regularly with my dogs. While they have to be on leash, I find that this park has more trash, dog poop and unfriendly users than Parleys. The people who use Parleys take pride in the fact that they can let their dogs play, and respect the land. The majority of us pick up after our dogs, and little to no trash is ever observed along the trails. I doubt you could say the same for Sugarhouse Park.
I encourage you and the other members of the Council to recommend Parleys, in its entirety as an off-leash park. I am a supporter of FIDOS, and hope you will be too.
Sincerely, L.W. Salt Lake City
January 8, 2007
Mr. Simonsen,
Our family has walked our dogs in the Tanner Park "Gully" for the past 8 years and we would like to encourage you to support "off leash" status for this area. We recognize that some people have complaints regarding the presence of dogs in this area, and we inform the rare person who contributes to behavior that is noted by those who have complained. My wife and I have participated in numerous clean-up days and remove trash from the area when we walk our dog there. Ironically, much of the trash we have removed is not from dog owners, but is from the individuals who "sled" down the culvert at the end of the park, the kids who construct bike jumps, and teens who drink and smoke in the gully.
There a very few areas in the city where we can take our family, including our dog and new baby, where we can enjoy watching our dog frolic off leash and interact with other dogs.
Please work to keep this area open to dogs on an off-leash basis.
Regards, E.&K.K. Salt Lake City
January 9, 2007
I write in support of formalizing the "Off leash" status of Parleys Historic Park. I walk my dog and I vote.
I visit the park several times a week and have found it to be a glorious experience. I admit that many people use this area, but isn't that the purpose of a park? You can be assured that your designation of this area as "off leash" is greatly utilized and valued by those who come to enjoy what you've provided.
My walks with my dog are the best part of my day. I would be heartsick to lose this wonderful opportunity to wander throughout the park together.
In my experience, I have found those who use the park to be friendly, responsible dog owners who value the area and constantly clean up after their pets. I've seen many who come and bring their children - to see the dogs!
I know that dogs improve people's health for one reason - people get out and walk with them. Please preserve our opportunity to improve our health and enjoy this wonderful area.
Thank you, J.C.
January 9, 2007
Dear Mr. Carlson: I am writing in support of formalizing the Parley's Canyon area for off-leash dog walking. I have used the area to take my dogs off leash since the trial period began a little over a year ago. I use the area an average of 4 times per week, which means in the past year I have walked my dogs there over 200 times. I have experience using municipal parks (including off-leash areas) in three other states over the past 20 years, and I can say without reservation that the users of the Parley's Canyon area are the most respectful users/dog owners that I have seen. Having such an area (and the full area, not a reduced portion as is being suggested by the single canyon rim resident) is of critical importance to the city because:
1) It allows for off-leash training, which results in our dogs becoming better "canine citizens" when they are at home in Salt Lake City, and
2) it allows younger and more high-energy dogs to get the running exercise they need, again making them better on the streets of our city (on leashes, of course).
I have walked all the trails in the park many times, and can tell you that signs of wear and tear from dogs off leash are almost entirely limited to pre-existing trails (which, by the way, several of the dog owners work to maintain). In fact, the only significant physical changes in the park have come from the bikers who have constructed a series of jumps and a fence on the south side of the creek. I urge you to act in the best interest of Salt Lake City residents and dog owners and formalize the Parley's Canyon off-leash dog area, and make it a safe contained space for dog owners to exercise their dogs. If you have a strong interest in protecting open land as a nature preserve it makes much more sense to look at the much larger (and less trafficked, even before the off-leash trial period) tracts of land on the East side of the highway, which are steadily shrinking to to new residential construction.
Thank you, P.C. Sugarhouse
January 9, 2007
Hello, My name is Brittany Retzlaff. I walk 2-4 dogs in the Parley's Gully at least 4 times a week, if not more. I am not familiar with the explicit objections to retaining the entire area as an off-leash area, but I'd like to make a few points: There exists a power transfer station and several large easements in this area; it is banked by an interstate highway; the debris that accumulates from people using wood, plastic, and garbage to sled the underfreeway pipe at the far end of the park is substantial; there are kids riding or sending shopping carts over the steep southeast slopes; and there is spray paint graffiti on various rock, stone, and concrete features. This is not a completely wild and pristine area free from non-dog impact or erosion. This area is already an urban mixed use area--historical, natural, utilitarian, bmxing/biking, dogwalking, swimming, exercising, urban retreat, freeway runoff, etc. With this in mind, I believe it is prudent to maintain the off-leash status with active management and improvement of the area by dog enthusiasts, than to reinststate weak leash laws, or a half-park ban of dogs. There will inevitably will be residual effects of foot traffic through this area--foot trails will remain compacted, and dog owners may fail to clean up their dogs excrement--leaving this ecosystem to absorb the waste. However, actively managing the area in this status is a better alternative than trying to ban people from using the area in this capacity. I urge you to support keeping Parleys natural area an off-leash area. I believe the balance of preserving the area and providing refuge for people and their canine companions will serve more people than it does not, and that the area will ultimately garner more stewardship in this capacity.
Thank you for your consideration, B.R. Millcreek Township Resident
January 9, 2007
PARLEYS GULCH OFF-LEASH AREA
I support the continuance of Parleys Gulch as an off-leash area. I am a Sugarhouse resident and have resided at 1048 Ramona Avenue for 11 years. I am not a member of any organized group on either side of this issue.
By profession, I am a planner and write environmental impact statements for various projects in the Intermountain West. I am also a keen outdoors person. As our lifestyle changed and enabled us to properly care for a pet, we adopted a young dog last fall. Within 2 months, we took her through basic obedience, socialized her with humans and other dogs, and have committed to making her a good canine citizen living in a very urbanized area.
And we discovered Parleys Gulch. Having researched where dogs are/are not allowed off-leash, we discovered that there are very few opportunities within the urban area to enjoy your animal off-leash. We are grateful for the off-leash area at 700 East and 1300 South but the lack of such areas frequently means that there are too many dogs in very close proximity and conflicts can and do arise.
How is the continuance of Parleys Gulch as an off-leash area beneficial to Salt Lake City? A designated and manageable area that has a clearly defined boundary by virtue of I-80, I-215, urban development, and steep terrain. It gives us a safe and enjoyable place to recreate with our dogs. Exercise opportunities for dog owners as well as dogs. You can easily hike for an hour in the park on innumerable trails. Continued faith in citizens to actively manage an area and invest time and resources to maintain, and to self police.
What happens if Parleys Gulch is no longer an off-lease area? We will have to look elsewhere into the true canyons where restrictions are not in place on public lands. Forest Service lands do not have off-lease restrictions and some of us will head there. They truly are natural and wildlife abundant as a recent encounter between our 27-pound dog and 2 moose revealed.
Addressing trail erosion, overuse of trails, and other observable indicators of human (not just dog!) use can follow the same principles and practices that are used in any park.
Dogs are part of our society and part of our families. We want to be responsible and law abiding and do our part to manage Parleys Gulch and other off-leash areas within the city.
D.A. Salt Lake City, Utah
January 9, 2007
Dear Mr. Carlson
As a daily walker in Parleys Historic Park with my beloved dog and family, I plead with you to leave the park as an off leash dog walking area. The park is a better place with the care and concern of the FIDOS community. It may keep some away who do not care for dogs, but it has kept out alot of the persons who may be down there for mischif, as my husband and I have noticed over the last several years walking there. The needs of dog walkers are great! If it was strictly set aside as a nature preserve only, I may visit it 2-3 times a year. Because of the needs of my dog, I am there daily. Various members of my family are there with me also, encluding my 6 and 7 year old children who throughly enjoy the beauties of the walk with their folks and canine companion. We have met many wonderful people walking there who we consider friends. One in particular, who wallks almost daily there WITH NO DOG who has arthritis, yet loves the beauties the park has to offer. The dogs don't seem to bo ther her at all. To some people I've met, they tell me these dogs ARE their only family around and they cherish this walking experience with them.
Dogs NEED the off leash, social time. They can become more aggressive towards other dogs when on leash. WE DO NOT HAVE MANY PLACES TO GO! If there is ANY concern that the park gets a little crowded, it is that there is SUCH A GREAT NEED for places like this. I certainly understand the concerns of land owners along the ridge and of the environmental concerns. It seems like a classic case of "not in my backyard!" I too love seeing wildlife doing what it does in it's natural invironment, especially so close to home. But it seems that when we domesticated our canine friends, their rights to free roaming open space become not as important as the other "natural" animals rights, which we respect....but are not intimatly involved with like our beloved dogs. I really don't know what the answers are. All I know is that this family would be devistated, LITERALLY, if this activity were taken away from us. We would, as many would, literally be lost as to what to do for that anticipated daily wa lk in such a beautiful spot. WE KNOW WE'VE BEEN LUCKY! We pray that luck continues to shine upon us and our dogs. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME!
K.G.
January 9, 2007
Mr. Phillip Carlson
As a registered voter and tax payer I wish to write in support of maintaining the Parleys/Tanners Park "Gully" as an "Off-Leash" area in its current state.
In all the areas I've lived in my life and all the dog-friendly areas I've visited, the Parleys/Tanners Park "Gully" is the most successful I've ever seen. It is hands-down, the cleanest and, in total honesty, I've not seen one issue between dogs or owners. Every dog owner I've encountered in the park has been responsible and courteous at a level I've not seen anywhere else.
Living only two blocks away from this loved area, my wife and our dog visit this area several times a week. I have never seen any wanton destruction of the area by any dogs or dog owners. In fact, I see just the opposite; its rare to see any evidence of dog droppings as owners tend to be extremely responsible, not only for their dogs, but often times removing the "litter" from other dogs as well, myself included. I've also seen as dog owners fill holes and repair disturbances created by dogs. On every visit I've made to the park, I've seen people doing nothing more than removing litter and cleaning up from other dogs. This has built a sense of community in the area unlike any I've seen before, and resulted in collectively responsible behavior from other visitors to the park.
Another benefit of this open area is the increased physical activity of visitors to the area. Obesity is a huge problem facing our nation, costing an additional 100 billion dollars in health care costs according to the American Obesity Association. It is important to consider this opportunity to promote additional physical activity of visitors to the area.
If for no other reason, this park is the feature we love most about living in this area. The Gully is a safe place where we can take our dog and allow him to run and play without fear of him being hit by a car, or bothering anybody else as the majority of visitors are their for the same reasons we are; to simply walk their dog. We've also noticed a significant improvement in our dog's behavior when we regularly visit the park. Not only is he be more sedate around the house, but he is less likely to get excited and bark at other dogs, mail carriers or passerby's.
I can only assume that other dogs in the area have the same reaction to regular exercise as ours does, resulting in a more peaceful neighborhood. We have had no problems with neighboring dogs whereas in other areas where we lived unrestrained neighboring dogs were the biggest issues.
Limiting the size of the off-leash area will, no doubt, decrease the areas popularity, displace dogs to other parks and trails, it will increase the impact to the smaller area and possibly discourage visitors from walking their dogs at all, promoting obese lifestyles.
As a taxpayer and registered voter, I implore you to allow the Parleys/Tanners Park "Gully" to remain as it is in its current state.
Sincerely, D.P. Salt Lake City
January 9, 2007
In response to the recent Trib article, “Pooch Park Dispute,” I would like to point out a few obvious points on the matter. As a dog owner and responsible taxpayer of Salt Lake City, I along with many other residents visit Parley’s off-leash dog park. On any given winter day, it is common to see over a 100 dog owners utilizing this park in just one hour and many more visit the park during the warmer months. I would find it difficult to believe that other parks in Salt Lake County get as much use as Parley’s. Although I am an environmentalist in every sense, I find Nancy von Allmen’s classification of the park as an “environmentally sensitive” area a bit ridiculous. I believe it should be pointed out that this park also houses a power station and runs along the I-80 and I-215 corridor. Suggesting that dogs instead of human exploitation affects birds and other natural life is nothing further than the truth. In fact, no one cares more about this park than the dog owners that frequently visit it. Numerous volunteers have pulled out abandoned grocery carts, highway barricades and loads of garbage left behind after decades of neglect. Actual “environmentally sensitive” areas, including the majority of Utah canyons and parks, are completely restrictive to dogs, even if leashed. Giving dog owners at least one suitable park to allow their dogs to roam freely means less use of other public parks and natural areas and also builds a sense of community for Salt Lake County residents.
L.A. Salt Lake City
January 9, 2007
Hello. I would like to have my support noted for dogs to be allowed off-leash in the Tanner Gully. I was formerly a Sugarhouse resident who used the park with my two dogs and am now a Holladay resident who uses the park. I have seen nothing but responsible pet owners at the park abiding by the regulations set forth a year ago. I thought it was a great idea to put up the fence and require leashes up to a certain point for the safety of all dogs and patrons. Most pet owners pick up their dogs' poop and I always see a wonderful volunteer in the park picking up other dogs' poop and poop bags. While not every single owner picks up every single poop, there are more that do, than don't and there are fabulous volunteers dedicated to keeping the park open to off-leash dogs who watch after the poop and the people. There is such a joyful spirit in the gully with all the free dogs and happy people and a great sense of community. I would hate to see the off-leash privileges compromised when so much good work and play is going on.
Thank you for your consideration.
M.K., Holladay resident
January 9, 2007
Gentlemen; I am writing as a fourth generation Sugar House resident, age 60, to voice my support of keeping the Parleys Gully area as an off leash dog park. My daughter just got an active border collie and took me with them to see the park. I was impressed with the way the area has been taken care of. The dog owners we met there were very much aware of their responsibility to control and pick up after their dogs. I have been a hiker, climber, and outdoors enthusiast all my life. There are many places to go for these activities where dogs are not allowed. I think the dog park is unique as a much needed area for city dog owners to be able to exercise their pets. I don't see that the dogs are causing any more "damage" to the area than humans. I would think that vandalism in the area would be low when there seems to be people there, with dogs, just about any given time of day. I hope you will give this matter your consideration and vote to keep the park as is.
Thank You,
K.G. SLC
January 9, 2007
Community Council,
I am both a registered voter and a Canyon Rim resident of 4 years. In fact, my husband and I live about 200 yards from the entrance of the gully.
"The gully" was one of the many reasons we bought our house in this area. We utilize the gully about 3 times a week with our Lab. We have been extremely happy with our encounters in the park and living within such a close proximity to it. My experience has been that the people that frequent the park are responsible dog owners. They have well-socialized dogs, keep them in control and clean-up after them. I commend dog owners that take the action to let their dogs get exercise rather than holding them hostage in their homes, yards, or kennels. I have yet to have a bad experience in the park.
Beyond having a great place to take our dog, voting against it being "off-leash" would deter the wonderful people that frequent the park to other places. As a woman, I feel safer walking my dog by myself with those responsible dog owners than I would without the dog owners down there. I enjoy the hellos I get from the dog owners and the pats my dog gets from complete strangers that have the common bond of letting their pets run and play in the gorgeous surroundings. Tanner Park visitors are quintessential Utah outdoorsmen. I enjoy being a part of this energetic outdoor community.
The gully is a dark and unprotected place. I'm afraid of what the park would attract if the dogs were not down there. I'm not sure the opposition has thought of that.
The gully keeps us in this neighborhood. I'm afraid if the park didn't continue the open invitation to off-leash activities, my husband and I would feel less inclined to continue living in Canyon Rim.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my voice on the topic.
V.R.
January 9, 2007
Dear Mr. Carlson,
Please support formalization of Parleys as an off-leash dog park. I take my black lab to the park frequently and all the dogs and people seem to have a great respect for the park. People clean up after their dogs and dispose of the waste properly. People and dogs use the already existing trails. I rarely hear a dog bark since the people who are able to have their dog off leash, have their dog in vocal control and the dogs have been socialized to be with other dogs. There are so few off leash parks in Salt Lake City and none the size of Parleys. Many hiking areas are also watershed areas so environmentalists like myself who also love their dog have very few choices.
I recently sold my home in the Harvard/Yale area and am looking at homes just south of Parleys BECAUSE the dog park is so important to me.
Thanks for your consideration, S.D.
Jan. 12, 2007
To: Members of the SLC City Council
Re: Parley’s Historic Nature Park
It is with great dismay and disappointment that I am writing to you at this time. I am dismayed that you are considering splitting the Nature Park so that part is off-leash and part would be on-leash. I am disappointed that you are letting a person (and perhaps a few others) sway your decision despite the recommendations you have received on how well the one-year test time went.
I want you to know that I admire and appreciate all the work an individual did several years ago (with others) to ensure that this area was not developed. When you read your reports, however, you get a very small snapshot of what has happen and is happening in the “gully”. Unfortunately, after the area was set aside, another group did virtually nothing to keep it in the “pristine” shape she feels it should be in.
When I started walking in the gully 13 years ago, it was a bigger mess than it is now. The hillsides were more eroded from kids riding their bikes down the hills. There were homeless people sleeping on the hillsides. There were teens paint balling, drinking, smoking and partying. The stream banks were eroded. She would like you to think that all this is because of the dogs. 13 years ago, there were very few owners and their dogs walking in the gully. The gully was not taken care of. She did not follow through with the commitment to care for the gully.
While it is still not in perfect shape, much work has been done. There has been much effort to protect the stream banks. Boardwalks have been built to protect trails and the natural water areas. Last spring, dozens of people worked to pull up non-native plants so native plants would have a chance. Native plants have been planted and watered. Screens were placed on bike trails to stop kids from riding down the hillsides. This work has been done by dog owners because they appreciate and care about this area.
You may think that is it only “fair” to set aside a small bit for on-leash dogs. It is not fair and would only cause more problems. Take a moment and look at the bigger picture. A good estimate is that 30% of the households in SLC have dogs. These homes pay taxes. They are a viable user group. Creating places for dog owners and their dogs to walk creates a healthier community. It is also only “fair” to the dog owners. Dogs are not allowed in Big or Little Cottonwood Canyons. They are not allowed in Parley’s or Lamb’s Canyons. They are allowed up Millcreek off-leash only on odd days. There are numerous parks where folks can walk without the headache of off –leash dogs. This gully is a small area to set aside. What would be fair is to set aside this area and several others for dog owners and their dogs to walk and exercise.
Again I ask you to look at the bigger picture. I know a few will be unhappy if you agree to set aside Parley’s as off-leash, but it worked and this is what you should do. Dog owners for the most part cleaned up and followed the rules. Last year a few people papered the neighborhood with information saying there would be 1000’s of dogs in the gully; that crime would increase; that there would be a have a huge stink from all the dog feces. This did not happen.
If you split the gully, you are only allowing the bad feelings to continue. Will you fence off the on-leash area? Will you send animal control down to patrol the area? It is guaranteed to continue to cause conflict between folks.
I would encourage you to walk in the gully. You may have a dog run up to you to say hi. You may see a poop pile every now and then, but for the most part it totally works and the dog owners are incredibly thankful.
Again, I ask you to look at the bigger picture. How can we create a healthy community? How can we provide for multiple interests and user groups. Be strong and make a good decision to create a place for many people and families to walk and exercise with their pets.
Sincerely, D.S. SLC, UT
January 15, 2007
Dear Mr. Carlson,
As I read the commentary surrounding the dispute regarding dogs in Tanner Park, I feel compelled to add my two cents. It’s been my observation that the park is in much better shape now that the dog owners are taking care of it than before when the Mr. Floor’s family let it fall into disrepair. They let it “go to the dogs”, and now that the dogs have it, it’s a place that the whole community can enjoy safely.
I live across the freeway on the east side of Wasatch Blvd. at about 3300 South, and in the nearly 20 years that I have been there, I have hiked throughout the hills and canyons extensively and am a fervent supporter of nature preservation. If I thought that the Parley’s Historic Nature Park was really being damaged by its use as an off-leash dog park, I would be the first one up in arms. However, the opposite is true. The damage that I have seen with regards to erosion & noise intrusion was caused primarily by kids who are in there with their dirt bikes and by those who “ride the wave” of water thru the tunnel at the northeast side. They are, I hope somewhat intimidated by the families and responsible adults who now frequent the paths. Since the dog usage, I have never seen trash, anywhere, strewn about as it was when there have been all night parties (with illegal fires) or vagrants camping out in little-used areas. Which there were, often enough.
It is an unfortunate reality that isolated places need to be somewhat policed in today’s society, and those groups of friends, families, and neighbors who now frequent the park are making it a better community habitat for everyone who chooses to use it.
Thank you for your attention, and I hope you will consider my comments and vote to continue to allow our families to enjoy our doggie outings. And PS there are still birds all over!
Regards.
K.O.
January 31, 2007
i support off leash areas, i'm attending the u of u and just moved here from san diego, out there we have dog beaches, dog mountain and dog parks. We also have doggy island, so coming here i think it;s important to have some of the same oppurtunities as well. Thank you for your time, Mike Sharpe
--
-M.S.
"Live and Let Live"
"Think Happy, be Happy"
February 7, 200t
Please reconsider accepting the Mayor's recommendation to preserve Parley's as an off-leash dog area. I understand that tonight the subcomittee which has been evaluating the proposal plans to present a motion for the City Council to deny ANY off-leash area in Parley's or possibly ask that dogs be banned from the park altogether.
My questions to you are:
When I visit your website I find far more people speaking out in favor of the proposal than against it. Are you going to ignore the voice of the people?
Why has this subcomittee chosen to ignore the comments from Sugarhouse residents?
Why is the subcomittee choosing to ignore the favorable comments in the Mayor's report?
-- A.O.
February 7, 2007
Dear Mr. Carlson,
I am writing in support of allowing the area popularly known as Hansen Hollow/Parleys Nature Preserve/Lower Tanner Park/"The Gully" to be an off-lead area. In my opinion, this is a *very* important resource for the community and to remove or restrict it, as some people are proposing, would has a significant negative impact on the entire Sugar House area, increasing the dog- and people-load on other parks in the area (especially Sugarhouse Park, Fairmont Park, and Herman Franks, as well as the pocket park at 1700S and 1500E.)
As I understand it, the opponents to the off-lead proposal are a small group of self-appointed people who have chosen to make their arguments from a historical perspective. To that end, they claim that the area was the result of significant sacrifice by their parents or friends and that the land was donated as a nature preserve.
From what I have been told (by a person who has extensively researched the public records), this is (to be polite) a load of political fertilizer. There were exactly 5 acres donated by Mr. Hansen, who did so as part of a land swap that allowed him to sell approximately 25 other acres that were unusable by him due to the construction of the I-80 interstate. In return for donating this land, the City of Salt Lake purchased an additional 5 acres, with UDOT purchasing the remainder. According to this researcher, no other land of significant size was donated or purchased by the Canyon Rim Association or its predecessor. All the land currently in the park area was either purchased outright or traded for by the Salt Lake City.
This brings me to their next claim, that this was an area intended as a nature preserve, there exist no covenants or other restrictions on the land, on any of the title transfers, nor has (as far as I have been able to discern), there been any added since the park was formed. Finally, even if it had been intended as such, the bifurcation and isolation of the park area from the Wasatch foothills by the I-80 and I-215 corridors has made that moot.
To look at the actual use of the park; in the 10+ years I have been walking my dogs there, the only people I have seen taking care of the park have been the dog walkers plus a certain amount of work done by various government agencies, who often have wreaked much havoc as they made their "improvements". I have seen the basin area transition from an area frequented by the homeless and drug users (with their assorted detritus and paraphernalia), and an area that was used as a dumping ground for unwanted water heaters, construction debris, and other trash, to become the comely and attractive place it is today, full of happy people and dogs, both families and individuals.
That is an asset. That is a reason to be proud to say "I live here". Removing it would say "Our government doesn't care about people, it only cares about covering their butts."
Sincerely G.H. Sugar House resident since 1996
Growing up in the Canyon Rim area by the big "A" framed house, I have seen the changes over the 41 some odd years, my parents still live there and we all still enjoy it.
I remember it being the place for motorcycles to race around making all kinds of noise. As well as being the Teenage place to do what teenagers do. Swimming in the creek that flows through. Climbing through the tube to get to Suicide rock(Painted rock for some). And over the years many people have made contributions to care for the park and making it more enjoyable for everyone. I occasionally take my 2 dogs up from my Sugarhouse home and take a couple of hours to reminesce of days gone by, and socialize with the humans as well as the K9's of all types. Catching glimps's of rabbits, lizzards and the occasional deer that some how made its way across the freeway to get in the ravine. Of the many people I have met on my journeys they all have respect for the area, and have shown respect for others be it human or other. Like all animals our K9 friends need a place to run and play, I agree that the park needs to be respected and I see that happening. It would be a tragedy if we were to prevent our furry companions the privlege of running free as god meant them to be. Rather than spending their time in a cement forest sniffing hard metal painted objects. I have friends that have disabilities, and they have come with me for a walk in Parleys, they got a kick out of being teased by 2 large dogs saying "Hurry up, I want to play".
Sincerely, PDC Raised in Canyon Rim, Reside in Sugar House. Live in Salt Lake.
February 19, 2007
I am a resident of Salt Lake City and Sugarhouse area. For the past year, I have brought my dogs to Tanner Park 3-4 times per week. I understand the issue is before the council as to whether the area should be a permanent off-least area. I fully support making Tanner Park a permanent off-leash area for dogs. I have read the supporting and opposing emails posted on the SHCC website. If anyone has ever been to the park, they will realize that most, if not all, of the opposing messages are completely wrong.
I understand and concede that there are a few residents that abuse the privilege of bringing their dog to the park. Sure there are some people that bring dogs that are aggressive , dogs that are out of control, and/or not obedient. There are also some people that do not clean up after their dogs as well. However, this is clearly a select few of the dog owners that bring their dogs to the park. It is only the select few individuals that are creating a bad name for the rest of the dog owners that bring their dog to the park. Even if this area is designated as a “on leash” area, there will always be the select few that will continue to bring their dogs to the park that are aggressive and out of control. There will always be the select few that will refuse to clean up after their dogs. There will always be the select few that allow their dogs to run free through the park. By designating this area as a “on-leash” area, it will not correct the problem that people often argue about when opposing this areas being an “off-leash” area.
The STRONG majority of dog owners clean up after their dogs and are in control of their dog at all times while off leash. I would say over 95% of the dogs I encounter at the park are friendly and well behaved. There are plenty of receptacles for dog owners to place dog waste inside the park and the strong majority of the dog owner use these receptacles. There are many residents I see each and every time I am at the park. There are many volunteers that help clean up the area as a result of the few irresponsible dog owners.
It is the initiative of Salt Lake City to create open space for all of its residents to enjoy. There are plenty of parks throughout Salt Lake City where dogs must be on-leash, but there are very few areas where residents can have their dogs off-leash. On any given day, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people that bring their dogs to enjoy Tanner Park. If the park was designated as “on-leash” or dogs were banned all together, very few, if any, residents will visit the park. If Salt Lake City wished to maximize the use of its open space areas, it will continue to allow dogs to be off-leash in Tanner Park. If someone doesn’t enjoy being around dogs, there are plenty of other areas where they can go without dogs being off-leash. Sugarhouse Park and Canyon Rim Park are great examples. What other areas do dog owners have to allow their dogs to be off-leash?
In addition, if it is the intent of this board to preserve the park, what other way does it intend to preserve it? If dogs are prohibited from being off-leash, mountain bikers, dirt bikers and etc will frequent the park much more, thus destroying the natural habitat. With dogs being off-leash in the area, most of the mountain and dirt bikers seek other areas to ride their bikes. Dogs do not harm the park anymore than another use of the park. If anything, allowing dogs in the park helps preserve and maximizes the use of the park for Salt Lake City Residents. Any other designation will limit the use of the park and be counterproductive to the true intent of having open space in Salt Lake City. If someone wants to enjoy a park within Salt Lake City, in which dogs would interfere with that enjoyment, there are plenty of other options besides Tanner Park to visit. There are plenty of other areas in and around Salt Lake for picnicking, hiking, mountain biking, and etc without interference of dogs. However, there are very few areas within the city where residents can enjoy allowing their dogs to be off-leash.
I believe that if this council where to pass an initiative banning dogs from being off-leash in Tanner Park, it would not be supported by the majority of the residents. It would be contrary to popular opinion of Salt Lake City Residents.
I therefore fully support Tanner Park being designated as a permanent off-leash area and being one of the few areas where residents can enjoy allowing their dogs to be off-leash.
D. P. Salt Lake City, UT
February 19, 2007
I am a resident of Salt Lake City and frequently meet my friends to enjoy, in my opinion, the best off-leash park. There are so few off-leash parks for dogs in Salt Lake City that is unfathomable that someone is thinking about closing or changing the few areas we have, especially Tanner Park, which is the most popular and well-known park available. On any given day there are hundreds of happy owners and friendly dogs that are enjoying the day and the wonderful scenery at Tanner Park. All of my friends who own dogs frequent Tanner Park and it is such a great treat to have such a beautiful park where dogs can enjoy freedom in visiting with other dogs and owners the same. I myself have RARELY seen anyone abusing the purpose of the park by having aggressive or unruly dogs or not cleaning up after their dogs. More often I see friendly and sociable owners and dogs enjoying meeting others, owners responsibly cleaning up after their dogs, and many times I have seen volunteers picking up after dogs that were not their own.
If you have ever visited Tanner Park, you will find that snow, sleet, rain, or shine there are always people and dogs enjoying their time there. Nothing seems to deter the “regulars” and everyone you meet always has a smile on their face. Please do not take away this wonderful park from the happy dogs and owners that love it so much. Instead, making Tanner Park a permanent off-leash area would be the best decision you could make for the park and the citizens of Salt Lake City.
Sincerely,
C. K. VT.
