Dear Commissioner Foley,

I would like to address several points raised by your letter of Sept. 7, 2006, to me and other members of the Long Island Dog Owners Group.

I want to once again make it clear that our signs did not in any way declare an off-leash area. They merely asked dog owners to use one side of the park. There were several dog owners who had their dogs on-leash on the side we were asking dog owners to use. The reason we did this was to leave more than one-half of the park open to non-dog owners so they would not be impacted by dogs if they didn't want to be. We did this because we wanted to be as fair as possible to other people who might use the park. We did this for five months even though we rarely saw other park users, and the rest of the park stayed barren of use for the most part.

The dog owners at Coindre have been a responsible group who care deeply about the park. They have been coming there for a long time. I have at times told them that we believe you don't want us there at all. The sense of anger when I talk about this with them is palpable. They don't understand the animosity and lack of understanding directed at them when it comes to something as wonderful as enjoying Coindre Hall with their dogs. I can't really say I blame them. People who have been bringing their dogs there for thirty years or more tell me that they rarely saw other people use the park in all the years they have been going there. Many people from Huntington go to nearby Heckscher Park, which has a very nice children's playground as well as a beautiful pond with a scenic walk around it. Heckscher Park is much better suited for the average family who wants a park to bring their kids to.

I would also like to respond to the statement in your letter about the impact of unleashed animals. I have seen the impact of dogs being at Coindre Hall and what I have witnessed has not been negative. There is a group who has brought their children to the gym to play basketball on Sunday evenings for several weeks. There was one young girl who was terrified of dogs. When even one of the smallest dogs got near her she would scream. Of course the dog owners made an effort to keep their dogs away from the group even as her friends made fun of her. Over the course of four weeks, as she watched her friends come down and interact with some of the dogs, she grew a little less afraid. Finally she got up the nerve to join her friends and come down near the dogs. In the end she ended up petting several of them. I can't begin to tell you how moved I was to see this girl who was so terrified of dogs come down and actually interact with them. She literally beamed with pride about the fact that she had overcome her fear, and reached the point where she could actually touch them. She had such a wonderful smile on her face as she was petting the dogs. Her life will be forever changed for the better. No longer will she have to live in fear every time she sees a dog approaching. This could only have happened at a place like Coindre. It could not have happened at a place where dog owners were hidden away from society in an "appropriate place".

I have also seen others who come there just to enjoy the dogs. Some parents actually bring their kids there because they like dogs. Some people have told me they can't have dogs, but like to be around them. Several of the brides who have been married there now bring their dogs to Coindre Hall. There have been posts on www.liweddings.com where brides talk about what a great place Coindre Hall is. Obviously these people don't view the dog owners being there as a negative thing.

I believe we made some very valid points in the two letters we sent to you recently, as well as a legitimate proposal that has worked well at several locations throughout the country. They were completely ignored in your response to us. I also believe that the dog owners at Coindre have bent over backwards to try to make things work there. We appreciate the fact that you are working with us to get the larger run at West Hills built, but the fact remains that even when the parks at West Hills and Blydenburg are built, Suffolk County will be woefully behind the rest of the country in providing sufficient Off-Leash-Recreation-Areas for its citizens. For a comparison consider that San Francisco has an estimated 120,000 dog owners. They also have 26 dog parks totaling 120 acres. The numbers are similar in several other places throughout the country. It is estimated that at least 500,000 Suffolk County residents own a dog. Right now we have one legal park available to all Suffolk County residents totaling approximately ¼ acre. Once West Hills gets built there will be two acres available - if the existing run is kept open for small dogs.

We really have a hard time understanding why we are viewed as such a problem in Suffolk County. Consider the following quote from the city of San Francisco's website:
"The City recognizes the strength, character and positive influence the pet-owning community brings to our neighborhood parks. We are continually looking to increase and improve recreational opportunities for these people, as well as for other park users."
This is common in many communities across the country. Tampa's website states that: "The City of Tampa's goal is to become a leader in quality Leash-Free Zones and a model for the rest of the State." Why is it that Suffolk County seems to view us as a problem, when all we are trying to do is enjoy the great outdoors with fellow dog owners, while at the same time ensuring that our dogs get the exercise and socialization that they need to be well-adjusted dogs?

It will be a very positive step to have the new run at West Hills available to the dog owners of Suffolk County, but dog owners who live in the village are still going to want to go to Coindre with their dogs. It is their park too. They live in the village and pay taxes just like everyone else. They are not looking to trade one place for another, although I believe that once West Hills and Blydenburg are built, the usage at Coindre Hall will go down substantially. They frankly don't understand why taking their dogs to Coindre Hall is such a bad thing, and we have no way of telling them since it has never been explained to us. With this in mind I would like to ask you a few questions.

Just how does the presence of unleashed dogs adversely affect the historic value of Coindre Hall? Our presence there decreases the likelihood of vandals and drug users who used to hang out there. The dogs keep the Canadian Geese away, which are projected to double in population on Long Island in the next five years. We pick up after our dogs. Who is going to pick up the mess the geese will leave if dog owners stop coming there with their dogs?

Does it really adversely impact the occasional non-dog owners who use the park? People do occasionally come there without dogs, but virtually all of them seem to be okay with the dogs, and many have even come over to talk to us. We make sure to keep our dogs away from wedding parties when there are weddings there, but they have usually told us "that's okay don't worry about it". You and I both know that there are a few people who don't like us there, but should those relative few set the policy for Coindre Hall? Should they be allowed to adversely affect the lives of Huntington residents who have made such good friends and formed such a sense of community at Coindre Hall? Who and what are the dog owners really hurting?

The dog owners at Coindre are at a loss to understand why they are viewed in such a negative light. They are not bad people. In fact they are far more responsible than the average dog owner. Their well-socialized dogs are not the problem dogs that you occasionally read about in the newspaper. When a dog is well socialized to lots of other dogs and people they have no need or desire to act aggressively towards them.

It appears from your letter that you are asking the dog owners who presently go to Coindre Hall to start using the new run at West Hills once it is open. We cannot in good conscience ask them to do that. If you were to take all the dogs that now go to West Hills and add all the dogs that now go to Coindre Hall, you could easily have more than 50 dogs in the run at any time on a typical weekend day. That would be a recipe for disaster. It would not be fair to all those who have worked to get the run built, especially Legislator Lou D'Amaro who worked so hard to ensure that this larger run was built in his district.

Perhaps if you could help us to understand why having the dog owners at Coindre Hall is such a bad thing, then maybe we can address those issues, and work together in a positive way to resolve the situation. We have been working for a long time to arrive at some kind of practical solution at Coindre Hall. I'm sure that if both LI-DOG and the Parks Department work together objectively, and with open minds, we can come up with a solution that will work for the dog owners of Huntington Village, as well as other park users. Other locations around the country have implemented shared park use and found not only that it benefits all concerned, but also that it has worked extremely well. I look forward to hearing from you, and having both you and LI-DOG work together to allow all those whose taxes pay for Suffolk County Parkland a way to share in the enjoyment of Coindre Hall.

Sincerely,

Michael Marcotte

Web sources:

San Francisco quote: http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/site/uploadedfiles/acc/Adoption_Center/flyers/Dog%20Exercise%20Areas%20in%20SF.pdf
This document has some excellent information including the fact that they have found that in their "Green Bone" parks (10-35 acres) it has worked well to have unfenced designated off-leash areas.

Tampa quote: http://www.tampagov.net/dept_parks/dogpark/history.asp

As always, keep in touch by e-mailing us at lidog_news@yahoo.com.