[OPINION] Fenced Dog Area: “A Solution Looking For A Problem”

Ken Bernhard is a longtime Westporter. He spent 8 years representing our town in Connecticut’s General Assembly, rising to assistant minority leader. He was 3rd selectman from 1987 to ’89, then served on the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Bernhard has been a board member of the Westport Library, Visiting Nurse & Hospice of Fairfield County, Westport Weston Chamber of Commerce, Norwalk Human Services Council, Earthplace, Westport Historical Society, Levitt Pavilion, Aspetuck Land Trust, Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation, and Connecticut League of Conservation Voters. He has also worked with Syrian refugees.

In advance of tonight’s Planning & Zoning Commission meeting (6 p.m., Zoom), which includes discussion of a text amendment that would permit a fenced dog area to be located within a park, Bernhard wrote to commissioners:

I am writing to respectfully oppose Text Amendment #874, which would modify §40, Dedicated Open Space and Recreation District #1 to permit 2 fenced recreational dog play areas at Winslow Park.

In my view, this amendment is a solution looking for a problem that does not exist. The existing arrangement at Winslow Park has worked successfully for more than 20 years. One area allows dogs to exercise and play off leash, while another requires dogs to remain leashed.

This arrangement provides a sensible balance and allows different park users to enjoy Winslow Park according to their preferences. Before fundamentally changing a system that has worked for decades, the Commission should identify the specific problem this amendment is intended to address and determine whether that problem exists.

If the concern is that dogs might run into the street, there are far simpler, less expensive, and less intrusive solutions than constructing enclosed dog facilities. A modest fence, wall, or other barrier along the roadway could address that specific safety concern without converting a portion of the park into a confined dog enclosure.

The existing off-leash area of Winslow Park should instead be recognized for what it really is: a people park as much as it is a dog park.

Its value is not simply that dogs are permitted to run free. The existing arrangement allows owners to walk, exercise, socialize, and enjoy the natural surroundings while spending time with their pets. People get exercise alongside their dogs, and the dogs get exercise, socialization, and the opportunity to explore. That combination of human recreation, outdoor exercise, nature, and responsible pet ownership is precisely what makes the existing area so valuable.

Winslow Park is for people too.

This is particularly important as Westport experiences growth in the number of apartment residences. Many new residents, as well as existing residents who live in apartments or other housing without large yards, need accessible places where they can walk and exercise their dogs. Winslow Park serves that need exceptionally well because it allows both people and dogs to get meaningful exercise and socialize together.

A fenced dog run does not provide the same benefit. Once a dog and owner enter a relatively small enclosure, the opportunity for a long walk through the park is eliminated. The owner loses the exercise and enjoyment of walking in the park, while the dog loses the opportunity to explore a larger natural environment.

A fenced dog area would therefore reduce, rather than expand, the recreational value of Winslow Park for many dog owners. The goal should be to encourage people to walk and exercise with their dogs—not simply to provide a place where dogs can be contained.

The proposal is particularly questionable because it calls for 2 separate enclosed areas—one for large dogs and one for small dogs. This distinction makes little sense as a means of promoting safety. Aggressiveness and temperament are matters of individual personality and training, not characteristics that correspond reliably to the size of a dog. Separating dogs simply by size does not address the underlying issue of temperament. And what, exactly, is the plan for medium-sized dogs? Creating arbitrary categories raises more questions than it answers.

Winslow Park (Photo/Ron Henkin)

The proposed location raises additional practical concerns. It does not have convenient parking or a readily available water supply. That makes the location particularly inconvenient for dog owners who want to come to the park to walk and exercise with their dogs. The very feature that makes Winslow Park successful — the opportunity for people and dogs to move through and enjoy a larger natural setting — would be diminished by directing users into a fenced enclosure.

Enclosed dog areas can also become soiled quickly, creating sanitation and maintenance concerns. Concentrating numerous unfamiliar dogs in a confined space can produce tension and conflicts that are less likely to occur when dogs have room to move and interact naturally. These are unnecessary issues to introduce into a park system that currently provides a spacious and natural alternative.

I was a Westport resident when the park was acquired decades ago. A similar proposal was considered around that time by the Parks & Recreation Commission and was rejected. This commission should be cautious about revisiting a proposal that was previously determined to be unnecessary, particularly when the existing system continues to function effectively.

The Winslow Park dog community.

Furthermore, approximately half of Winslow Park remains an area where dogs are required to be leashed. This provides substantial space for residents and visitors who prefer not to encounter unleashed dogs.

Finally, I would strongly oppose any effort to commercialize the proposed fenced area or restrict its use to Westport residents. Such a policy would be discriminatory and unnecessarily unfriendly to people from neighboring communities. Visitors who come to Westport with their dogs are not simply users of our parks; they are also customers of our restaurants, retail stores, and other local businesses. Westport benefits from being a welcoming community, and we should not adopt policies that unnecessarily exclude or stigmatize people who live outside our borders.

Additionally, the enforcement mechanism being proposed by the proponents introduces a new regulatory framework that imposes a cost and logistical burden on residents and non-residents alike.

The commission should preserve what already works well, rather than create an expensive, restrictive facility to address a problem that has not been identified. Winslow Park currently offers something difficult to replicate: a place where people can walk, exercise, enjoy nature, socialize and spend quality time with their dogs, while still providing ample space for those who prefer leashed dogs. It is one of Westport’s assets that helps to make our community both unique and a special place to live.

For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Commission to reject Text Amendment #874, and preserve the existing, successful arrangement at Winslow Park.

(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To support “06880” with a tax-deductible contribution, please click here.)