To the Editor:
An online commenter to last week’s article on the Trade Wind fence called dog walkers “the worst of the worst.” If that were true, what a wonderful world this would be. Be that as it may, I am so sorry that this person has such adverse feeling about dog owners. We are part of a larger group of folk who enjoy Trade Wind, and, as with any group, there may be a few bad apples. We dog walkers try hard to discourage any inappropriate behavior we witness. We are a caring and responsible group of people who respect each other and our pets. We share information; we help each other with our pets; we even step in and discipline a dog if the owner is not readily available, clearly embracing the adage that it takes a village to raise a (dog). Above all, like all the users of Trade Wind, we appreciate the vast, unfettered beauty of this land.
A dog owner for over 50 years, I started walking my dog at Trade Wind several years ago. At that time many people and their dogs were walking up and down the Trade Wind runways. It was great, but because of rules posted by the Land Bank a few years ago, we now walk along the trails. It took some time for people to modify their walking habits, but I can say with confidence that the vast majority of dog walkers at Trade Wind follow the LB rules. Over the past several months, the condition of the grass on the runways, where dogs and people no longer congregate, has improved greatly.
Last spring we got word that the Land Bank was proposing stricter rules, stating that people and their dogs would be allowed to walk on the trails only — this despite their having told us that dog paws would not harm the grasses. The Land Bank subsequently backed off the restriction on dog activity; however, they held firm about walkers sticking to the designated paths only. Several concerned users of Trade Wind attended the Oak Bluffs Land Bank Commission meeting in April, asking the LB to reconsider and to allow walkers to cross the grass using two well-established paths as shortcuts. Consideration for people with disabilities and senior citizens was the top reason for wanting these crossovers. People left that meeting with assurances that the issue would be considered, and that the Land Bank staff would be in touch with its decision. In the weeks that followed, a few people made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the Land Bank to find out where the process was. Unbeknownst to this group, the OB Land Bank Advisory Board introduced the idea of a fence at their May meeting, and voted in June to install a fence around the grassland area. A fence was not mentioned at the April meeting, and did not become known to the Trade Wind walkers until this past September.
[As a side note, over the past few years we have made several other overtures to the Land Bank, offering to do volunteer work, form a dog walkers committee, etc. We have been either rebuffed or ignored. While we have tried to cooperate with the LB, we have been called scofflaws, vandals, and other demeaning names. We continue to want to work with the LB, not against it. We have thanked them profusely for the dog poop stations recently installed; we use them, and picked up after other dogs besides our own, and still we are treated with little or no respect.]
Last month, a sizable group of concerned Trade Wind users attended the OB Land Bank meeting to discuss our objections to the unsightly and unnecessary fence proposed by the LB staff to stop the crossover action. We understood that our concern would be addressed. We also took our own action, putting together a petition so the LB could understand that the opposition to the fence is a concern to a much broader audience than simply dog walkers. Again, we were led to believe that our concerns would be discussed, and that a decision might be made at the November meeting.
About 30 of us attended the OB Land Bank meeting on Nov. 7, and were shocked to learn, after presenting the petition with over 300 signatures, that the public attending the meeting would not be allowed to comment or ask questions, and that only the board could discuss among themselves. An even greater shock was felt late into the meeting, when James Langel of the Land Bank announced that the discussion was moot because the decision in favor of the fence had been made in June.
We have tried to work with the LB, have attended meetings when suggested, have waited patiently for people to get back with us, have held our tongues when told to, all out of respect for their process. But all the while it seems we have been led on and/or misled. The most profound example came at that last meeting, when LB staff threatened that the preserve could be shut down by the NHESP if the LB failed to install the fence and keep the grasses in “total isolation.” If this is true (which I personally doubt), it goes against the LB’s stated wishes to encourage more aviation at the Trade Wind airstrip by improving its maintenance of the runway and taxiway. At the very least, this would require heavy mowing of the airstrip grass several times a season. It seems absurd that people using two narrow crossover paths could be more threatening to the grasses and beetles than heavy equipment going up and down the entire area.
It is little wonder that many of us who use and appreciate the Trade Wind are upset. Still, we hold out hope that we can work with the Land Bank on this issue.
Jane Hawkes
West Tisbury
The post Holding out hope for Trade Wind appeared first on The Martha's Vineyard Times.