Editor:
I would not have believed it possible, even in Aspen.
Council doesn’t care that Aspen’s vet reported he treated 143 small dogs attacked by large dogs last year.
Council doesn’t care that a number of small dogs in Aspen have been killed by large dogs and coyotes.
Council doesn’t care that I submitted a petition with six pages of signatures requesting a seasonal, safe, enclosed area for small dogs to recreate.
Council doesn’t care that a local vet, a groomer, an ex-mayor, and two women attacked by large dogs requested from council that small dogs have a small safe area to recreate, out of the path of intimidating large dogs.
Council doesn’t care there’s an ever-expanding number of both large and small dogs in Aspen, so council’s decision not to create a dog area nine years ago is totally irrelevant.
Council doesn’t care that Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and El Jebel have recognized the wisdom of setting aside space for animals to exercise in safety. I began the search for an appropriate location a year ago. Council doesn’t care.
Six weeks ago, on June 9, I requested that the Aspen City Council approve a “seasonal small dog run” using a temporary plastic fence so small dogs can play out of the way of larger dogs, accommodating both sizes of dogs and reducing the chance of harm. Council turned the matter over to the city Parks Department, which was blatantly against the idea from the beginning, even though they assured City Council it would not be expensive or labor-intensive to create a seasonal small-dog run.
Fearing the unreasonable from this council, I gathered signatures on a six-page petition that included letters and testimonials supporting the small dog run and the dangers to small dogs that Aspen poses. Veterinarian Scott Dolginow wrote: “We at the Aspen Animal Hospital are supportive of the idea of a ‘small dog park’ in Aspen.
Small dogs, because of their stature, are more susceptible to inadvertent damage from larger dogs while at play. A designated area for smaller dogs to interact might give peace of mind to dog owners by providing a safe environment for their pets.
Council doesn’t care.
Most disturbing to me is the city Parks Department’s and City Council’s total lack of recognition of the legitimacy of dogs and their owners. There needs to be a new paradigm of recognition that dog owners are as legitimate as any other group of community residents. Dog owners are historically allocated space that no one else wants because they are not credited with the same rights as other park users. Dog owners should be treated as a legitimate, integral part of the community rather than a problem, and local authorities should affirm that legitimacy, which encourages dog owners to act more responsibly with their pets. Respect begets respect.
The city Parks Department and City Council completely ignore the fact that there’s a large increase in both large and small dogs over the last nine years, making it more necessary than ever to restrict the space for small dogs to keep them out of harm’s way. It would appear the City Parks Department (and City Council) have no interest in protecting our beloved pets from harm, because all the facts provided to them regarding attacks and deaths were dismissed. I provided the council members a 35-page “position paper” full of facts, information, and photos of dog parks, including the exceptional dog park at Crown Mountain in El Jebel. I don’t understand how City Council could have read my 35-page “position paper” — which included an explanation of the differences between large and small dogs, rules of protocol and etiquette for dogs and owners, and facts and recommendations — yet still refuse (to take seriously) our dogs’ safety.
City officials are employed to represent us and our safety, but this city Parks Department and City Council just don’t care.
Susan O’Neal
Aspen