Marilyn Marler Likes Dogs
The thing is, the Ward 6 councilwoman also likes deer, grouse, ground squirrels and baby bunnies. Marler, a natural areas specialist with the University of Montana, said the Missoula City Council vote Monday to preserve the leash law on the North Hills and Mount Jumbo has some people thinking she doesn’t like pooches AND that she somehow tried to quietly sneak something through the Council. In fact, Marler was the councilor who requested a public hearing on the matter. She also said the vote needs to be properly characterized. It wasn’t a change in the rules. Rather, the 7-5 vote preserves the status quo — on the books, leashes are required on conservation lands. (The Parks and Rec director has said the decision changes the way the department has been doing management and public education.)
Marler, among the majority in favor of a stringent leash law, said some people have asked the council to repeal or reconsider the vote, but that might be confusing. So she said she and maybe some others have asked the mayor to veto the law so there’s a clean slate.
She contacted me to ask that the council’s decision be properly couched as preserving the current rules and not as a change of law. I, in turn, was eager to ask her why off leash, Allen the dog would be such a nuisance to deer. Hypothetically, of course. If — hypothetically — he once in a long while took off after a deer, he’s so big and slow that there’s no danger he’d catch anything. Plus, it’s not like he’d be after a rarity, like a bald eagle or the queen of England.
Marler explained, and apparently without undergoing cardiac arrest. Even if a dog isn’t ever going to catch a deer, his racing along behind it stresses the deer out. And a dog that once in a long while chases a deer is probably chasing other animals, too. That includes ground squirrels, which means the dog is maybe digging up holes, too. And she said it includes baby bunnies: “Everybody loves baby bunnies.” The impacts on the deer might seem mild, but Marler said they’re cumulative. She said not all dogs, but some dogs, interfere with people’s use of open space, like runners who nearly trip over them.
Marler said she agrees people need places to let their dogs run off leash. She does feel like dogs are family members, but she also said she’s going to be more protective of wildlife than some other folks. (She’s definitely more protective than one of my former coworkers who lives outside Great Falls and refers to deer as “farm fleas.”) Basically, Marler wants Missoulians to tread lightly on conservation lands.
“There’s so many of us and so little space for wild animals that I really do think we need to consider that.”
– Keila Szpaller
February 26th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
[...] a guest column in the Missoulian this is an extreme overreaction. But, Ms. Marler cries out, “She likes dogs!” … and deer, grouse, ground squirrels and baby bunnies. In classic fashion, she misses [...]
February 27th, 2009 at 12:16 am
She contacted me to ask that the council’s decision be properly couched as preserving the current rules and not as a change of law.>>>>
I find this a confusing statement.
There are rules posted on the city’s web page listing the open space areas as voice restraint areas. There are rules posted by the city at trailheads indicating dogs must be leashed for the first 300 yards. The city code outlines laws for voice restraint areas. It also outlines laws regulating leash only, and no dog allowed areas.
When you say the decision preserves the current rules and not a change of law, I don’t know what you are talking about. Is it city code or is it the rules. Are the signs posted on trails the law or the rules, or none of the above? Many of those signs have been at the trailheads for a long time now.
There is information on the parks department web regarding voice restraint (rules) on open space land. There is also allot of information in the city code. How is a citizen to decide which information they are to follow?
Who decides what rules will apply on open space land? Will it be the voters; will it be the running community, or the city staff, the city council, a citizen advisory group, or FWP and the Peshal family, that chicken guy Morgan with the GPS?
If we need to scrap the current code on the books, will we need to hire consultants from Portland to guide the rewrite? If we don’t hire consultants to explore the issue, are we giving open space and leash laws equal attention to other issues before the council-like zoning rules and street/bike path design?
In tough financial times with tight city budgets is this a good time to take on this issue? If the new rules require more staff for enforcement, will Ms. Marler support the additional cost?
Is there any data on the population of bunnies on the open space land? Are they at risk, and does Ms. Marler hate coyotes and foxes?
She contacted you to have the council’s decision to be properly couched. Is she going rouge? I thought the city had an fte communications director for this kind of thing.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Unfortately, Keila’s post does little to clarify the legal issues. The resolution did not create a new law, and the media is not helping to get that information out. One of the two commenters implied that city council should not talk to the media. What’s that about? (Rhetorical question). In any case, attempts to clarify are going nowhere fast, so let’s hope the mayor just vetoes this ineffective resolution that changes nothing in the North Hills and Mt Jumbo.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:38 am
In addition to what Ms. Marler said about dogs and wildlife, it is against state law for your dog to harass wildlife, and it can be shot on sight by FWP officers.
From the FWP website:
“…any peace officer, game warden, or other person authorized to enforce the Montana fish and game laws who witnesses a dog chasing, stalking, pursuing, attacking, or killing hooved game animals may destroy that dog, on public land or on private land at the request of the landowner, without criminal or civil liability.”
SB 104, 2001 Legistlature
“… a person who purposely, knowingly, or negligently permits a dog to chase, stalk, pursue, attack, or kill hooved game animals is guilty of a misdemeanor and is subject to the penalty in 87-1-102(1). If the dog is not under the control of an adult at the time of the violation, the owner of the dog is personally responsible. A defense that the dog was allowed to run at large by another person is not allowable, unless it is shown that at the time of the violation the dog was running at large without the consent of the owner and that the owner took reasonable precautions to prevent the dog from running at large.”
February 27th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Marilyn,
I’m working on a story now …
Keila
February 28th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Right wing conservative makes a good point.
State law already covers the regulation of dogs harassing wildlife on public lands. Do the citizens of Missoula need the city council to spend time and money enacting a local law that the state law already covers? Would this be fiscally conservative of the local governing body?
A few months ago city council took a local glue sniffing law off the books. In that case they decided the city code was not needed because sniffers could be regulated under the state code. Why do the citizens of Missoula need both city and state laws to protect wildlife from dogs, but we only need state law to protect grandmother from the glue-sniffing thug down the block?
(I know, Right Wing, that’s a dumb question. Everybody knows grandmother has guns and ammo for protection, and the deer and bunnies don’t)
I know that my dog might sniff at glue if I left some out someplace, but he would not go back and keep sniffing it to get a rush. He might get a rush out of chasing a deer though. I can guarantee the citizens of Missoula, 100% that my dog has never vandalized a car, or used a gun to rob a local establishment.
I am glad the local authorities have FWP to call if some dog decides to get a rush, and some hot head maces-up the countryside. The cops might have something a little sticker to deal with down in the valley.
P.S.–East of the divide, it is common courtesy for the ranch manager to leave the FWP out of the equation. He simply offers his riffle to the dog owner.
March 17th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Marlyn is not above board on this issue. The resolution states”Be it further resolved the City Council hereby authorizes the City Parks Department to post city owned lands as “Dogs Not Allowed Areas” for human safety or resource/wildlife protection.” Maybe that is why she is going on about bunnies and runners that trip over dogs. This a bigger issue than off or on leash. If this is what she and others on the council want we had best be aware.
July 4th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
What total bullshit.
“Even if a dog isn’t ever going to catch a deer, his racing along behind it stresses the deer out. And a dog that once in a long while chases a deer is probably chasing other animals, too. That includes ground squirrels, which means the dog is maybe digging up holes, too.”
Yes, dogs chase squirrels and dig holes, and anyone who has a problem with this, doesn’t like dogs. If they claim they do like dogs, they are lying.
Up is not down.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
[...] one reader thinks it’s hogwash that Councilwoman Marilyn Marler likes dogs. But maybe Councilwoman Stacy Rye really does like [...]