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.
Ken Bernhard
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.)
Smart man, that Ken.
My question is, why can’t all of this exist together? Why not have what exists now along with an option to also have a fenced in area where dogs can run off leash in addition to the areas where dogs must remain on their leashes and the area we currently have that isn’t fenced in where dogs can be off leash? The proposal where all dogs must be vaccinated for the safety of everyone is a good idea for all animals and people using the park even if they don’t get a fenced in area? I’m not sure where I stand. It’s just a question.
If it ain’t broke…
There are plenty of projects the town needs. This isn’t one of them.
When this proposal was first presented to us there was never a mention of having to leash dogs in the area outside the fenced in area. As a matter of fact the exact opposite that dogs could remain off leash in the current off leash areas.
I would have never have signed it had the original petition been honest with its intentions.
You tell them Ken!
Don’t fix what isn’t broken
Thank you, Ken, for your eloquent summary of the issues. We have something special in Westport that works beautifully as it is.
Thank you Ken for stating the obvious opposition so clearly
100%
Well said Ken!
I agree 100%. I’ve been using “The Barrons” since 1989. Don’t believe kids should be allowed. They ride bikes are at eye level and can be a threat to dogs on leash. Plenty of places for kids. Leave it alone Westport leave something alone for God sake! Best place for us dog people ever!!!
I never realized there are so many elderly, or folks in general in Westport, many who comment on this blog, who don’t like kids?
Sad.
I agree with this article 💯. Well said. The reasons are all correct. I grew up in Westport and lived there when it was left to the town. Several of our dogs enjoyed going there and running with us. Our friends from Weston, Wilton & Norwalk loved bringing their dogs to run. Why incur an additional expense especially when it segregates residents from non residents.
I agree with everything in Ken’s letter. Winslow has had work fine for decades. There is nothing to “fix.” We don’t need to create problems.
Completely agree! Well reasoned and written.
Thank you Ken…Right on the money.
I completely agree too, I hope your voice is heard. Please don’t change the park. Maybe a little better fencing along the roads but that’s it!
I agree with Ken!
Wise words. Thank you Ken.
As a longtime basset hound owner, I appreciate the irony of debating whether a basset is “big” or “small” simply because it is short. Percy, our current basset puppy, is living proof: small in stature, very big in attitude—and completely unaware of his actual size.
Westport is full of people who love dogs, our parks, and the people who use them. But I’m not particularly fond of calling Westport “Dog Port” or Winslow “a Dog Park.” And I agree with Ken: the proposed text amendment is unnecessary—and premature.
There are simply too many unanswered questions about cost, maintenance, safety, security, location, visual impact, and how any facility would fit into our broader park system. An enclosed area also doesn’t eliminate the need for responsible owners who can step in quickly when a canine kerfuffle erupts.
If Westport ultimately wants a dog park, that discussion should begin with the Parks & Recreation Commission after thoughtful consideration—not with a text amendment by the P&Z that is nowhere near ready for action.
Jennifer Johnson – RTM D9
Not sure what the definition is of “problem” in this context, but I would use it. And I don’t bring my dog without a fenced in area currently. And I pay my taxes here like everyone else.
I agree. The problem that he seeks to understand is the concern that some dogs will not only run into the street but may escape elsewhere; ie through the woods. I would love a large enclosed area for my dog to run off leash. I understand there are advantages and disadvantages, but to write off any and all dog enclosures doesn’t make sense.
Yesterday, I signed a petition at Winslow Park that recommends that nothing be changed. A modest fenced in enclosure for use only by “small” dogs may appeal to certain dog owners who believe their dogs are intimidated by larger dogs. As best as I can tell, that case has not been effectively made.
Completely agree! Thank you Ken Bernhard.
I don’t agree with most of the arguments in this article, although I’m not surprised at its positive reception. I’ve followed the Winslow Dogport initiative after responding to the survey, and I’m aware that it has generated considerable negativity. Many people object to a small area of the Winslow Park being used for a fenced dog run, even though the walking paths would not be affected and the landscape itself will hardly change. This “problem that doesn’t exist” actually is a problem for some dog owners. Not everyone is comfortable having their dogs unleashed in an open area, especially people with rescue dogs. Since Westport has no fenced dog park, if I take my dogs to run we go to Easton, Milford, Ridgefield, Rowayton, or Stratford to enjoy the fenced areas that those towns maintain. I hope that there will be a fenced area in Westport at some point, but right now I’m grateful for the facilities in other towns.
I agree – thank you
To be clear, many of us object to fenced dog parks because they are inherently problematic. They attract inexperienced owners with untrained and unsocialized dogs, and this can lead to fights and aggression. They also spread disease.
With all due respect, your example is exactly the situation I would want to avoid – an owner showing up with untrained rescue dogs they don’t really know and do not have under control. I don’t want my dogs exposed to that.
I have extremely mixed feelings about the proposal, but, Mike, you constantly make these dubious assertions that fenced dog parks are “inherently problematic.”
That is your personal opinion. That you keep stating it as fact makes your opinion increasingly dubious.
If you haven’t seen unfortunate incidents between dogs in unfenced areas, you haven’t looked very hard.
On the other hand, anyone who has spent much time in the city knows that fenced dog areas can be extremely successful.
Problems generally start with the owners, no matter the nature of the area or the enclosure.
I agree with the sentiments of Ken B. At the very least, the regulation, if it comes to that, should mandate that any such dogport not encroach on any existing off-leash footprint or trail.
If our P&Z does legislate something idiotic, we should petition our RTMers to overturn it. But we’ll burn that bridge when we get to it…
Our property is completely fenced in with the black mesh fencing seen often. It’s doesn’t obstruct our view, keeps deer out and perfectly safe for our pup and her buddies to run around in. While the idea of a fenced in area in a local park may be good for some dogs and their owners, I wonder how it could be kept clean and safe?
I agree with Ken’s statement.
I love dogs – big, small, friendly, grumpy…..but I also, as a long-time Westport resident that is watching Westport’s open space be gobbled off for a variety of reasons and development, cherish our open space. Winslow Park is a park that should not be defined not as a dog park but as beautiful open space to be enjoyed by all. When I first moved to Westport, our family enjoyed taking our two wonderful rescue dogs (and to the comment by Laura Garn, it’s not the owners of rescue dogs that are driving this effort!) to Winslow Park as they stayed right by our side. In later years when we inherited our daughter’s dog we stopped going given her propensity to wander. We did not feel it was the Town of Westport’s responsibility to create an environment in Winslow Park that would allow us to let our new dog off leash. We found alternative areas, and she remains a happy dog. Creating a text amendment to amend open space guidelines for the creation of a “dog port” is, as mentioned in previous comments, a very slippery slope. What will come next? Will there be a need to remove trees to allow for a larger parking area? Will this amendment allow for new construction or additions to open space? I shudder at the thought of what might come next if the door is opened by this text amendment. If you say “that will never happen” remember that not too long ago beautiful Jesup Green was almost decimated for a few parking spaces. We need to protect Winslow Park as open space and dog owners that visit Winslow Park need to do a better job of adhering to the on and off leash areas (ie, dogs need to be leashed in the parking lot) which will help tremendously with incidents and dog safety per Westport Animal Control.
Exactly right, Julie.
Thanks, Ken, for yet another dedication of your time and energy for the benefit of humanity and, in this case, dogs. How people can not know that a problem must be defined before an attempt is made to solve it is a mystery to me. Apologies if this seems an attempt to steal your thunder, but I tried to stop Parks and Rec from making exactly the same mistake, writing their long term parks development plan without having first decided what are the needs of our people. My attempt in this blog fell flat, I believe in part because not one elected or appointed official got involved or even wrote a comment. You, at least, have gotten attention from a town official. If our town’s officials aren’t paying much or any attention to our citizens, how do we then proceed?
I’m a huge fan of Winslow Park. It’s ideal for dogs and people. Ken B.’s argument is spot on: a simple fence around the area exposed to traffic should be added. That’s it.
If you need an enclosed dog area, Winslow Park isn’t for you. Go elsewhere. But for those who want what Winslow offers—dogs and people socializing freely in a beautiful setting—it can’t be beaten. As for small versus large dogs, it is rarely if ever a problem.