October 4, 2002 

To the Members of the Suffolk County Legislature: 

            I have been asked by the Huntington Dog Owners Group, a community group in Suffolk County, to address concerns about the impact dog parks have on the environment, in particular wetlands areas. I am a graduate of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, with a master’s in Water Studies. I am currently president of the Quinnipiac River Watershed Association and an officer of both the statewide Rivers Alliance of Connecticut and the Mill River Watershed Association. I am also a commissioner of the Hamden Natural Resources and Open Space Commission, which recently explored and subsequently endorsed a dog park for the town. I offer these observations on the environmental implications of dog parks.

            Fecal matter is considered by the EPA a significant source of non-point pollution. Failing residential septic systems and runoff from farms constitute the most serious source. Uncollected pet wastes are, by contrast, minor contributors. 

Dog parks require owners to collect feces and dispose of them in receptacles located in the park. These dog parks tend to be self-policing so that any owner who fails to clean up after their pet is admonished by other park-goers. Disposal of these wastes in the sanitary sewer system ensures that they will be treated appropriately before release to the environment. On the other hand, wastes left by unleashed pets in a park, or pets in an enclosed yard, will eventually make their way to an aquatic drainage. Wastes deposited by the roadside will be immediately flushed by the next storm event to the nearest watercourse by the storm sewer system. Viewed in this context, dog parks provide an environmental benefit. 

The environmental threat from dog urine is minimal due to the small quantity of liquid. In addition, the urine is filtered effectively as it moves through the ground. Watershed land adjacent to or overlying a public water supply is kept free from development precisely because it provides such significant filtering capabilities. 

Dogs allowed to run free in a maintained dog park are far less likely to transfer ticks and urushiol oils from poison ivy to their owners. While owners may be required by regulation to keep dogs on a leash in public spaces, observation shows that the pleasure of watching a pet running free often overwhelms the legal conscience. 

A dog park placed in an existing park constitutes no loss of wildlife habitat. It certainly presents far less of a threat to wildlife than dogs running loose. 

In conclusion, the environmental threat posed by dog parks is minimal. By contrast, the benefits to the community are significant. I see dog parks benefiting owners as significantly as their pets. Parks provide an opportunity to enjoy the outdoors, to appreciate and value the open space provided by the community, and certainly to socialize with neighbors who share at least one common interest

Sincerely, 

 Martin L. Mador
130 Highland Ave.
Hamden, CT 06518