New nature area gives dogs a bone

[bigdoglover]

Columbia Missourian

By Arlene Bishop

The proposed Garth Nature Area would give dog owners a safe, fenced area to allow their pets to roam leash-free.



They don’t want their dogs separated or close to the road, and they want nature to be preserved.

That was the consensus reached Monday evening in the sprinkling rain by a group of about 25 people *— some with their canine best friends, public officials and curious passers-by about proposed changes to the Garth Nature Area.

The City Parks and Recreation Department held the meeting to hear the thoughts of residents about proposed changes to the nature area, which include several options for a fenced- in, leash-free area where dog owners can let their pooches run free.

Robert Bardgett, an owner of a dalmation-pointer mix, was happy to give his input into the location and design of the leash-free area. He lives near the proposed nature area and currently drives all the way to Twin Lakes Recreation Area to let his dog run free.

Steve Saitta, director of planning and development for Parks and Recreation, will consider the group’s comments when designing the area, for which construction should begin next month.

Saitta and Mike Snyder, a senior park planner for Parks and Recreation, presented three options to the group for how the park might look. The first option one would include two separate, fenced-in leash-free areas with water spots located on the east side of the nature area near the parking lot. One would be a 1.6-acre area for small dogs, and the other would be a 2-acre area for large dogs.

The second option calls for two leash-free areas on the south side of the nature area, and includes a 1.5-acre area for small dogs and a 3.6 acre area for large dogs. This option places the leash-free area farther from traffic near Bear Creek and also provides a water spot in which dogs could play.

The last option would consist of a sole 3.6-acre leash-free area with a water spot where dogs would not be separated by size.

After much discussion, it was decided to meld the first and last options because those in attendance felt it would be best to place any leash-free area in the southeast corner of the nature area away from traffic and homes.

Renee Simmons, owner of an English shepherd, said she didn’t like the idea of having dogs separated by size because some people have large and small dogs. She added that she didn’t consider it to be a problem for all dogs to be in the same area.

“At Twin Lakes, there is very little issue. And if a dog is a problem, it shouldn’t be in the park,” she said.

Rudy Williams, head of the Hunter’s Gate Homeowners’ Association, which is located on the north side of the area, expressed concern about noise from dogs barking.

“Some people come here pretty early in the morning and we can hear their yapping dogs; so the further they can get them away from us, the better for us,” he said. He added that having clear markings indicating where dogs can be free of a leash and where they can’t would increase the comfort of park patrons without dogs.

“My wife won’t use the trail because she is scared of dogs,” he said.

Pete Anger, head of the Parkade Neighborhood Association, which is located on the south side of the nature area, was concerned about preserving the beauty of the park.

“It’s very beautiful. If you develop it to death, it’s not going to be,” he said.

Saitta said the aesthetics of the park would remain intact and the fencing would be round, treated lumber, similar to what is currently at Twin Lakes Recreation Area. Some dog owners were concerned that the fencing at Twin Lakes isn’t high enough. They suggested something that could be built taller and hidden by shrubbery.