Letters February 17, 2010

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

By JH Weekly User

Still room for improvement
Tomorrow, Feb. 18, planning commissioners will begin reviewing a rewritten chapter of the draft Comprehensive Plan called “Managing Growth Responsibly.” This revised chapter reflects a major shift from the original draft that was presented to the community in April 2009. While there’s still room for improvement, the chapter now clearly acknowledges that both the amount as well as the location of development matter.

For instance, the chapter’s statement of ideal has been changed from “Meet the human needs of the community in locations identified for development” to “Limit growth to established development allowances while encouraging preservation of existing neighborhoods and open spaces.”

Why is this a good thing? Limiting expansion is fundamental to protecting Jackson Hole’s most important assets – our town and rural landscapes that are home to irreplaceable wildlife, amazing scenic vistas and a high quality of life and experience for residents and visitors alike.

Excessive growth and its direct and cumulative impacts would put our community’s stated priorities – wildlife, open spaces, scenery and small town character – at unacceptable risk. And limiting growth is not going to halt future expansion because extensive residential and commercial development is already in the pipeline.

Tomorrow and throughout the Comp Plan process, we encourage you to voice your support to elected and appointed officials for a plan that states that additive growth is not appropriate for Jackson Hole, and that unpredictable density increases should not occur in the future.
– Kristy Bruner, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance

Wildlife before dogs
I would like to stick my wet nose into this dog controversy.
I read an article about a woman that qualified for the affordable housing at Jackson Golf and Tennis and is attempting to have the no dog rule changed.

As I see the situation the value of her dog in relationship to the value of the wildlife that inhabits that particular area on a scale of 1 to 10, her dog rates below zero.
The presence of dogs even restricted behind a fence causes tension on wildlife attempting to traverse migration routes.

People don’t reside in this beautiful community to hear your critter bark or to pick one’s way around it’s droppings while skiing or hiking.

There are way too many dogs in this valley and though I’m not in favor of laws restricting dog population I do hope that the residents use some common sense and voluntarily limit their household to one dog.

Another thing if I may: Last summer, I barely missed hitting two dogs by inches while driving down Kelly Ave. this while the owners were present. If I would have hit the dog what exactly is my responsibility? Am I suppose to exit my vehicle, check out how injured the dog is, maybe give it mouth to mouth, call a vet and try to locate the owner?

I will tell you this much, your irresponsible behavior is not going to create an emergency on my part. Not one minute of my life is going to be disrupted because you failed to secure your critter.

I’ve experienced situations while riding my motorcycle around town being attacked by dogs and dogs darting in front of me. You can take this to the bank, if a dog causes me to lay my bike down and I survive the incident the owner will have a pet to bury!

The town of Jackson needs a strict leash law and bounties should be awarded to anyone calling in loose dogs, plus fines for those whose dogs get into neighborhood trash cans and defile other people’s lawns. The dog situation in Jackson is out of control and needs to get a handle on it.
– Butch Krichmar, Jackson
PERMALINK:
Letters February 17, 2010 | Planet JH News Article: Letters To Editor

Reader Comments
Hey, Butch needs to chill out, man; maybe check into some anger management. He has what we call 'dogophobia', where every dog he sees is a potential menace and nemesis, plotting to take him down, and leaving messes for him to step in. Try to relax, man. george
What bothered me about the dogs article was the sense of entitlement by the person quoted. Since when did living somewhere for a handful of years entitle her or anyone to own a home for less than other people have to pay for it? And with no strings attached. It's a great community service to provide affordable housing ownership, not an entitlement. There are also non-subsidized housing areas that have pet restrictions, such as Spring Creek and condos. This affordable housing development, which I support, was built in an natural resource zone, which requires trade-offs. Take it or leave it. If a dog is important to you, then wait for a unit that allows dogs or buy a market-rate place. All the haves-versus-have-nots arguments do in this case is make the affordable home buyer look ungrateful and spoiled, and it will make it harder to find long-term support for affordable housing project. sam
Personally, I like to get the facts straight before I make public comment on an issue. The fair-market housing to the North of Spring Gulch Road was build in the elk migration corridor. The Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis employee housing was built partiallly IN the Natural Resource Overlay. BOTH of those housing areas are permitted to have dogs. The only area NOT permitted dogs is the affordable housing which was built ADJACENT to the NRO (not in) and has been a disturbed area since 1958 when the airport runway was extended. The only reason dogs were ever prohibited from the affordable housing is because the fair-market owners demanded it. Dogs were in fact approved for the affordable housing in the original master plan. I have neither a feeling of entitlement nor am I ungrateful. I'm simply asking for the same right that everyone else in the area has. What's wrong with that? Butch, obviously, does not know me or my dog. I obey all leash laws and do not permit my dog to bark incessantly. I am a RESPONSIBLE pet owner. Personally, I am not a fan of loud motorcycles but you don't see me trying to stand in his way of owning one. Karen
If there was such a concern for the environment, none of the development should have occurred in the first place. Obviously, it's too late for that. As has been pointed out, other parts of the development that have actually been built WITHIN the NRO allow dogs. The affordable housing area is NOT in the NRO, so why shouldn't dogs be allowed? If there's a sense of entitlement coming from anywhere, it's from the fair-market owners. They can have their homes there, but those that need affordable housing shouldn't. They can have their dogs there, but those who need affordable housing shouldn't. Do their dogs not have an effect on the wildlife? The area has already been disturbed by the development of Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis. There's an airport next door. None of the environmental assessments of the area recommend prohibing dogs. Plus, residents of the National Parks are allowed dogs. If you're truly concerned about the presence of dogs having an additional effect on the wildlife in the area, then prohibit dogs universally. Don't make it so that only the people who pay more are the ones entitled to have a dog. Kathy
Butch, it is plainly and painfully obvious that you have some anger, control, and perhaps fear issues regarding dogs that needs to be dealt with. A dog's life "rates below zero"?!?! "The owner will have a pet to bury"?!?!? You have a strong lack of empathy towards a dog owner who is only trying to buy her own home, taking a responsible and measured action to secure her future. Unfortunately it seems that her freedoms in the matter are being unduely restricted. As reflected in the comments from Karen and Kathy, it seems to me that the research has been done and presented an entirely logical explanation as to why dogs should be permitted in this area. This in direct opposition to your arguement based entirely on emotion and grandstanding (and bordering on fear-mongering). I am no dog lover myself, having been bit by two different dogs in recent years. I too am irritated when a dog owner doesn't pick up after their dogs. Does that mean that I am going to call the police every time my neighbor's dog barks after 10PM, or take further drastic action as you may suggest? Absolutely not! Butch, man, get a grip! Jonah
Much as I think we all have rights to drive or ride what we choose, I'm not any more a fan of cycles than Butch is of dogs. At least dog waste is biodegradable. Can he say that about cycle exhaust? Think of the environment?! If you really read what Karen is saying and get rid of the knee-jerk irrationality, all she is seeking is fairness. Elaine
As much as I agree that Butch is way more angry than he should be about this whole dog situation, his motorcycle has less of an effect on the environment than a pet dog. It has been proven in recent years that a medium sized pet dog's carbon footprint is bigger than that of an SUV. If you don't believe me, see it for yourself: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427311.600-how-green-is-your-pet.html Also, if you can afford to own a dog, which can cost as much as $39,000 dollars over the average lifespan of 14 years, I don't think you should qualify for affordable housing. If you're going to buy affordable housing, then you should know that some sacrifices are going to have to be made. As much as it is unfair that people in the fair market value housing can have a dog and those in affordable housing cannot, that's life; it isn't fair and if you haven't figured that out yet then you have a bigger problem on your hands. Anonymous
So, if I remember correctly, this whole dispute is about wildlife and the effect that dogs will have on the "crucial" moose habitat in that specific area? Check this article out. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article2310627.ece It states, "during a single year, according to new research, a full-grown moose expels – from both ends – the methane equivalent of 2,100kg of carbon dioxide emissions. That is said to be as destructive for the atmosphere as the emissions released by 13,000km (8,000 miles) of car travel." And you people are worried about a dog??? Seriously? Get over it! As for "anonymous", no life isn't fair. But God bless the people who realize that they don't necessarily have to accept things the way they are and have the courage to stand up and fight to make a change. How else do you think the world got to where it is today?? In support of the affordable homeowners
Prior to Grand Teton National Park being instituted in its current acreage, it was ranch land, largely commercial. I'm pretty sure dogs ran the grounds of the valley. I wonder what impact on the moose population there was at that time? The town has grown, changed water courses and yes, changed migration. However, this is all due to the two legged animal. Refering to the NPS rule about dogs in the backcountry... the regulations banning dogs is primarily to prevent diease spread such as Parvo. People visit from all around the world and bring their dogs. Many come form states or countries that do not regulate disease or vaccines. We cannot say OK to one dog and no to another. The second reason is a dog may chase animals while off leash. Therefore, no dogs in the BC. As a park ranger I have never been involved with carbon footprint issues regarding the Parks. But in retrospect, look how many SUVs come through town. I'm pretty sure the cars win in the pollution category. And remember, in reference to the science article, New Zealand is an island and has limited refuse and water purification ability. As for affordable housing, choices people make in how much they are willing to sacrifice and spend on a pet has nothing to do with the requirements. Some people would do more to have the companionship of a dog than spend their low salary on something others consider more valuable. I've had better conversations with my horses than most people I've met in town. Money should not dictate one person's ideals over another's in a community that relies on each other to maintain. The dog stays, you can leave. Or if you prefer, buy a horse, get rid of the SUV. Make us all happy. And take Butch's motorcycle somewhere where he can ride it year-round and I won't have to peel him off the highway when he hits the moose that has to walk in the highway becasue some richy-rich had to put an overly expensive gaudy house with a view in the miidle of the forest. DJ
DJ - Thank you for your history and insight. I do find it interesting that "two-legged animals" expand development into a natural area, build their homes, drive their cars in and out and, yes, (the group that is truly fighting this) bring in their own dogs - are so concerned about the environmental impact of a couple of dogs. Kathy
I am amazed as to the response to my letter as per the out of control dog problem that exist for the most part in the town of Jackson. Not one of the respondents took up the issue of irresponsible dog owners. Lets say for instance that 80 per cent of dog owners are responsible, they use a leash when walking their dog, they pick up after it etc. though 80 per cent is a generous estimate 20 per cent of unregulated animals in an off the cuff estimate would be 200 dogs that roam at will. My motorcycle dosen't run willy nilly across the street, it dosen't crap on other people's lawns and it's enviormental foot print is much less than any SUV and certainly any semitruck that enters the valley. So as per you folks that defend irresponsible dog ownership the winds of change are going to change and believe me new laws will be enacted that will impact even the most reponsible dog owner Butch Krichmar
Butch - I didn't see anyone defend irresponsible dog ownership. I am a dog owner. She is always either in our fenced-in yard or on a leash. We pick up after her. I know I didn't take up that issue because I agree with you on that point. However, in your letter, you combined two very separate issues. Most of the comments here defended the first issue: dog ownership in the affordable housing portion of Jackson Hole Golf & Tennis. Irresponsible dog ownership (i.e. dogs roaming freely, not being cleaned up after) is a completely separate issue and applies to everyone, not just those who live in affordable housing. I seriously hope that you are not implying that only those who live in affordable housing are irresponsible with their dogs. Kathy
I realize this post was started a month ago but was thinking today about the comment regarding the cost of dog ownership and that anyone with a dog should not qualify for affordable housing. It has bothered me all month in fact. It seems to me that $39,000 over 14 years is paltry compared to the cost of a fair market home here. Perspective is missing from this comment from anonymous. I suppose if you qualify for an affordable home, then you are supposed to realize you are poor and have no privileges (like dog ownership). Never mind that you may be frugal and may make other sacrifices to afford the dog. After all, I guess affordable homeowners must keep their place as serfs in the hierarchical structure of community. No, life isn't fair but we all know that, as we all know that such discrimination is immoral. S. E.
I know this all was discussed quite some time ago, however, dogs need to be maintained. Some idiot lets their dog roam free and every day it come and takes a dump in my lawn. This black lab come by without an owner or a leash. Next time I'm turning it into the authorities. HH

Opinion

Letters February 17, 2010

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Reader Comments