07.10.13 OSBT Tag Program Memo Complete
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: July 10, 2013
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration of a motion to recommend to City Council the
Elements of the Monitoring Component of the Voice and Sight Tag Program.
PRESENTER/S:
Michael Patton, Director, Open Space and Mountain Parks
Mark Gershman, Environmental Planning and Monitoring Supervisor
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Adaptive management is an iterative process of decision making aimed at meeting objectives by
adjusting actions based upon experience and measures of success. Adaptive management is one
1
of the guiding principles of the Visitor Master Plan (VMP). Consequently, developing and
implementing monitoring is an important part of Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP)
adaptive management.
The Voice and Sight Tag Program (Tag Program) is a strategy described in the VMP to improve
the visitor experience and reduce impacts to natural resources. Staff worked with community
members to develop a general approach to measuring the success of the Tag Program, then
translated that approach into a detailed protocol, which was subsequently used as the basis for
data collection. Data were collected before the program went into effect, approximately six
months after the program began and again three and (2006,
2007 and 2010). Monitoring included use of OSMP-sponsored surveys of Boulder residents,
interviews of dog guardians and observations of visitor parties that included dogs. The
monitoring report was released in December 2011.
Some members of the community, the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) and City Council
expressed concerns about the approach taken for monitoring of the Tag Program, especially
elements of observational monitoring. In response to community concerns, staff developed a
1
Flexible, Adaptive Management.
Implement an adaptive management approach that: monitors visitor experience,
visitor infrastructure, and resource conditions, assesses the effectiveness of management actions, and revises them
based on new information gained from research and experience. (p. 30)
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 1
revision to Tag Program monitoring which was recommended to the OSBT in October 2012.
The Board chose instead to recommend that staff develop an adaptive management and
monitoring program prior to the implementation of the Tag Program changes now set to take
effect during early 2014.
Staff initiated the Tag Program monitoring review by inviting members of the community to
provide input and by hosting a meeting of stakeholders to develop recommendations about how
best to improve the situation.
recommendations of the stakeholders group were used by staff to develop the recommendations
below.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff proposes that the Open Space Board of Trustees recommend that the successof the
Tag Program be assessed by:
Retaining the following elements of the monitoringconducted from 2006-2010:
Inclusion of questions regarding awareness of the Tag Program in the OSMP
R
resident survey (2015)
Interviews with dog guardians to measure degree of compliance with the leash
R
possession requirement. (The decision to repeat interviews implementation will
depend upon the level of compliance measured in the baseline.)
Observation
R
Visible Display of Voice and Sight Tag
Dog in Sight of Guardian
No more than two dogs off leash
Dogs respond appropriately to guardian's command
Omitting the following elements of the previous monitoring
Observational monitoring of conflictive behaviors
R
Excrement removal (as part of Tag Program monitoring)
R
Adding the following information:
A tally of:
R
Voice andSight summonses, convictions and incidents
Related summonses, convictionsand incidents
A summary of unsolicited comments received related to the voice and sight
R
program
Modifications of future resident and visitor surveys to collect a broader range of
R
information aboutthe perceived benefits and downsides of recreating withdogs.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
Economic - Overall economic impacts on the business community are unknown but are
anticipated to be minimal. The Tag Program assessment recommendations were developed to
be cost effective by taking advantage of readily available information while retaining
continuity with past monitoring and the value of previously collected data.
Environmental Overall impacts on environmental resources are likely to be indirect. The
assessment program, as proposed, will have a very marginal effect upon environmental
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 2
sustainability. However, the monitoring is intended to lead to management decisions that in
turn improve environmental conditions.
Social Boulder places a high value on informed decision making and this is made possible
by assessing the Tag Program. Indirectly, the assessment is intended to lead to management
actions which improve the visitor experience.
OTHER IMPACTS
Fiscal The monitoring program is intended to be repeated three times (before Tag Program
enhancements go into effect, after the implementation of the enhancements and then two to
three years after the second round of monitoring). The monitoring component is anticipated
to cost approximately $170,000. The costs will be incurred during three different years. The
majority of cost (58 percent)is salary for existing staff to develop, oversee and report the
results (see below). Approximately 38 percent of the cost will be used to fund seasonal
employees who will collect data in the field and summarize unsolicited comments, summons,
incident as well as conviction information. About four percent of the cost is for materials
and supplies.
Staff time As described above, standard staff time makes up an estimated 58 percentof the
project costs. In 2013 the standard staff willneed to develop adetailed protocol and sampling
schedule, hire,trainand supervise seasonal employees, field test methodologies and
participate in the baseline condition assessments. This is estimated to require the equivalent
of one half of a currently funded standard full-time position.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK
In October 2012, staff recommended that the OSBT endorse a revision to the monitoring
component of the Tag Program. Staff recommended limiting further monitoring to observations
of whether guardians were successful at controlling dogs with voice command. The Board did
instead to direct staff to develop an adaptive
management and monitoring program prior to the implementation of the Tag Program changes.
This memo contains staff recommendations for that program.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
Staff designed a two-part review process.First, OSMP asked for comments from those willing to
share their ideas about: a) issues or concerns about Tag Program
monitoring (as contained in December 2011 report) and b) what OSMP could do to improve Tag
Program monitoring. Staff contacted several thousand people via email, including Tag Program
participants, community interest groups and those who had signed up to be kept informed about
OSMP issues. A notice was also placed on the OSMP web page.
2
Approximately 140 comments were submitted. Many (110) referred to the Tag Program but did
not specifically address monitoring. Those that included comments specifically addressing the
monitoring program can be found in Attachment A.
The second part of the monitoring review involved a small group of stakeholders who have been
involved with OSMP management and the Tag Program. OSMP staff invited Friends Interested
2
The full set of comments (27 pages) is available on the city Website at this address:
http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/openspace/pdf_VMP/overarching/v-s-monitoring-comments.pdf
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 3
in Dogs and Open Space (FIDOS), local environmental organizations, the Humane Society of the
Boulder Valley and a former member of the OSBT to meet and discuss how to provide useful
monitoring information to inform future Tag Program policy decisions.
FIDOS responded with a written statement and did not participate in the meeting. Their
recommendation (Attachment B)was that the city should use convictions for selected voice and
sight and related offenses as the measure of Tag Program compliance. FIDOS also
recommended that staff invest in research to better understand the ecological effects of dogs.
recommendations with the other members of the group in advance, and
participants made an effort to include and consider those recommendations in the discussion.
Details of the public process can be found in Attachment C.
ANALYSIS
Based upon feedback from the OSBT, City Council and community members, staff listed options
for inclusion in Tag Program monitoring and evaluated each to determine which staff considered
)
most cost effective and appropriate for the context of the project (Attachment D.
The criteria for analysis were benefit, feasibility and cost. In the context of a monitoring
indicator, benefit included not only the importance of the measure in terms of tracking an
important component of the program, but the accuracy, sensitivity, clarity and reliability of that
measure as well. Feasibility included a determination if OSMP staff could actually implement
the method, as well as the degree to which the monitoring was expected to appeal to the various
constituencies (staff, community members, interest groups, the OSBT and City Council). Staff
recognizes that a successful approach to Tag Program monitoring requires techniques
appropriate to the community context.
The evaluation matrix (AttachmentD)includes two categories of monitoring components. The
first set contains the components used in the monitoring summarized in the December 2011
report. The second set contains additions suggested through feedback on the OSMP Website or
that arose during discussion with the stakeholder group convened in June 2013. The information
below explains the recommendations in the evaluation matrix.
Recommendations on Components of the 2006-2010 Tag Program Monitoring
Resident and Visitor Surveys
Continue the use of the OSMP resident survey as a cost effective tool to gauge the level of
awareness of the Tag Program
. The next survey is scheduled for 2015 which coincides with
the upcoming round of Tag Program monitoring.
Continue ongoing use of both the resident and visitor surveys to assess quality of the visitor
experience, the degree to which visitors are experiencing conflict on the system, and to
identify the sources of conflict
. The public process highlighted the importance of identifying
broaden the surveys by asking more questions aimed at understanding the perceived benefits and
downsides of recreating with dogs.
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 4
Interviews
Interview dog guardians to determine if they are in possession of a leash during the 2013
(baseline) phase of data collection
. Depending upon the level of compliance measured, these
interviews may be repeated after the Tag Program enhancements are implemented.
Observation
Continue observation of the following elements of compliance with the Tag Program:
Visible display of tag
Dogs remain in sight of guardian
Only one or two dogs off leash and under voice and sight control
Do
Discontinue observation of:
Excrement removal as part of the Tag Program monitoring
Conflictive and prohibited dog and guardian behaviors
Staff understands that there were objections to the approach used to measure compliance with the
ability to
exercise voice control a central element of Voice and Sight control and considers it critical to
include a measure of this factor in the Tag Program monitoring.
After conversations with stakeholders, peers in other agencies and academics who specialize in
the measurement of effectiveness of management actions, staff was unable to develop an
approach that provided greater accuracy, reliability, sensitivity and feasibility than the one
deployed during the 2006-2010 monitoring. Staff considered recommending a modification to
the Tag Program ordinance that would require a guardian demonstrate voice control at the
request of a ranger. This would allow OSMP rangers to collect data about dogs responding to
guardians commands. However, this approach did not seem appropriate for OSMP because of
the clear lack of community support for a demonstration test as a necessary step before acquiring
a voice and sight tag. There are also technical issues associated with the potential bias in both
visitor and dog behavior introduced by a r
not consider this option further
The regulation requires for voice and sight control that a guardian be able to exercise control so
-1-2, B.R.C). When designing the monitoring, staff chose what was believed at the
time to be a slightly more relaxed standardonly considering situations where a guardian was
unable to demonstrate control after calling his/her dog twice. In reality, guardians seldom called
their dog one time (Come King! Come King!). Consequently two calls were typically made as
Staff understood that potentially the elapsed time between two call efforts might not be
consistent with the requirement that a dog come immediately upon command. However, staff
decided to use the relaxed two-call standard as a direct measure of whether a dog came
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 5
guardians. Some comments from community members suggested using a time standard rather
with the regulatory requirements. In discussions about this with both the stakeholder group and
among staff, there was concern that establishing such a time limit would face the same objections
St
not the dog meet the regulatory requirements, as was measured during previous monitoring.
Staff believes that the objections to the approach used to measure voice control from the 2006-
2010 monitoring are mostly related to the lack of clarity in the presentation and description
rather than a flaw in sampling design or accuracy. Staff will attempt to improve the clarity with
which this measure is communicated.
Conflictive and prohibited dog and guardian behaviors (Attachment E)
The observations of dog behaviors in the 2011 report provided the most direct measures of
conflict or resource impact. However, staff determined that this was not an appropriate measure
at this time because of community concern over the level of subjectivity involved in the data
collection and disagreement by some members of the community about which behaviors should
be characterized as conflictive. Additions to the Tag Program assessment described below will
provide some information about prohibited behaviors that are recorded or reported on OSMP.
Additional Tag Program Monitoring Components to be Considered
Summons and Conviction Information
Provide information about the number of incidents, summonses and convictions related to
violations of the Voice and Sight ordinance (6-1-16 B.R.C.) and other related ordinances
and regulations.
The stakeholder group meeting about Tag Prog
recommendation to use the number of convictions for certain dog-related offenses as the sole
measure of Tag Program compliance. This monitoring strategy would have the advantages of
being relatively inexpensive to collect, and its close relation to the level of compliance with Tag
Program requirements. It would also have the advantage of appealing to a stakeholder that has
had long involvement in and many contributions to the Tag Program. The group expressed
concerns that by itself, such a measure might not be auseful way to inform decisions. One of the
sources of concern expressed was the many factors, other than the level of compliance, that
could affect the number of summonses or convictions. For example, changes in the number of
rangers due to staff turnover or the amount of time spent on patrol (e.g., a busy fire season)
would have a very strong effect upon the measure. Since the location and timing of ranger
patrols varies depending upon the multitude of calls on their time, it would be impractical to
standardize sampling.
even if these difficulties could be overcome, it would
be necessary to develop management objectives around this indicator. Staff was unable to
contemplate a meaningful way of determining the acceptable number of convictions. Without a
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 6
range of acceptability, there would be no guidance for adaptive managementand no utility for
the measure.
However, the group of reviewers recognized that a variety of information can be useful for
decision makers to understand the situation. The group recommended that numbers of voice and
3
sight summonses, convictions and incidents and related regulations be included as part of the
Tag Program monitoring report. The applicable Voice and Sight ordinance components and
related ordinances are shown in Attachment F.
Ranger Observations and Perspectives
Provide information from OSMP rangers to characterize the level of compliance with the
Voice and Sight and related ordinances and regulations.
Similar to information about
summonses, etc., the experiences of rangers describes another perspective on what is happening
on OSMP. Although not a scientific sample, r
types of things that occur. Ranger observations are not well-suited to numerical comparisons.
Unsolicited Information
Provide a summary of information submitted to OSMP about experiences related to the
Voice and Sight Program.
OSMP receives aconsiderable volume of information from visitors on a daily basis. Some of
these calls, emails or visits are to discuss experiences with the Tag Program. Members of the
group reviewing the Tag Program monitoring suggested that this available information
represented a cost effective way of collecting and sharing information from a wide range of
visitors.
However, such information has limitations as a reliable source of information for decision
makingbut combined with field observations, and the other information described above, may
contribute to an understanding of conditions on OSMP.
Onsite Comment Form/Self Administered Surveys
Do not install comment forms or self administered surveys to gather information regarding
the Tag Program.
Among the ideas suggested by community members was installing comment or survey boxes
throughout OSMP for visitors to document noteworthy occurrences.
comment forms and boxes would likely be targets of vandalism and require regular maintenance
and replacement. Although anecdotal information has some value, staff concluded that this was
not a cost effective way of gathering information. Furthermore, many OSMP visitors contact the
department offices or Website directly from the trail since it is likely that many have cell phones
.
Compliance Standards and Adaptive Management
Monitoring indicators are but one part of an adaptive management framework. Other important
elements are standards/thresholds and responses. The standard of compliance for the Tag
Program has been drawn from the VMP (p.63), which states that compliance with dog control
3
OSMP Rangers frequently respond to situations where no summons is issued, but an injury to a person, dog or
wildlife resulted from action that is prohibited. This often happens when the perpetrator flees the scene.
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 7
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 8
ATTACHMENTS
A.On-line Comment Form Responses Comments Referencing Monitoring
B.Friends Interested in Dogs and Open Space Response
C.Tag Program Monitoring Public Process \
D.Evaluation Matrix
E.Dog and Guardian Behaviors
F.Ordinances and Categories for Reporting Summonses, Convictions and Incidents
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 9
This page is intentionally left blank.
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 10
%88%',1)28%
;IHRIWHE].YRI4EKISJ
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 11
;IHRIWHE].YRI4EKISJ
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 12
;IHRIWHE].YRI4EKISJ
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 13
;IHRIWHE].YRI4EKISJ
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 14
;IHRIWHE].YRI4EKISJ
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 15
;IHRIWHE].YRI4EKISJ
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 16
;IHRIWHE].YRI4EKISJ
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 17
;IHRIWHE].YRI4EKI SJ
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 18
;IHRIWHE].YRI4EKI SJ
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 19
;IHRIWHE].YRI4EKISJ
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 20
;IHRIWHE].YRI4EKISJ
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 21
%88%',1)28&
)URP MLPLOOJ>PDLOWR MLPLOOJ#KRWPDLOFRP@
6HQW 0RQGD\0D\ 30
7R 3DVFKDOO'HDQ
6XEMHFW 5( 9RLFHDQG6LJKW0RQLWRULQJSURJUDPGHYHORSPHQW
Hello Dean,
Thank you for your repeated attempts to contact me. As you know I was out of town hence the
delay in responding to your calls and emails. I will be out of the country for the proposed date
of the meeting for developing a new monitoring program. The FIDOS' board has given serious
thought to what level of participation we should engage in for this effort and have collectively
decided that we will not be represented at the upcoming meeting and our involvement will be
limited at this time to the following statement.
Best Regards,
-Jim
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
/ƚΖƐƚŚĞŽƉŝŶŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞ&/K^ŽĂƌĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞďĞƐƚŵĞĂƐƵƌĞŽĨĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨ
ŽƵůĚĞƌΖƐsŽŝĐĞĂŶĚ^ŝŐŚƚ'ƌĞĞŶdĂŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵŝƐƚŚĞĂĐƚƵĂůŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨĐŽŶĨŝƌŵĞĚ
ǀŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌĚŽŐƐŚĂƌĂƐƐŝŶŐǁŝůĚůŝĨĞ͕ĨŽƌĚŽŐƐďĞŚĂǀŝŶŐĂŐŐƌĞƐƐŝǀĞůLJƚŽǁĂƌĚƐŚƵŵĂŶƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ
ĚŽŐƐ͕ĂŶĚĨŽƌƵŶůĞĂƐŚĞĚĚŽŐƐŽŶůĞĂƐŚŽŶůLJĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚƚƌĂŝůƐ͕ĞƚĐ͕ƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞ
ďĞĞŶƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂƚĞĚďLJK^DWƐƚĂĨĨĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŽƵƌƚƐ͘/ŶƐŚŽƌƚ͕ƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽƐƵďƐƚŝƚƵƚĞŵĞƚƌŝĐĨŽƌƚŚĞ
ĞĨĨĞĐƚŝǀĞŶĞƐƐŽĨƚŚĞ'ƌĞĞŶdĂŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵŽƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶĂĐƚƵĂůǀŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌ'ƌĞĞŶdĂŐĚŽŐƐ͘
;sŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶƐďLJŶŽŶͲ'dĂƵƚŚŽƌŝnjĞĚĚŽŐƐĂƌĞŝƌƌĞůĞǀĂŶƚƚŽŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞĂŶĚƐŚŽƵůĚďĞ
ĐŽŵƉŝůĞĚƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞůLJ͘Ϳ
ZĞůLJŝŶŐƵƉŽŶƐƵďũĞĐƚŝǀĞŽďƐĞƌǀĂƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƐƚĂĨĨ͕ŽƌǁŽƌƐĞLJĞƚƵŶƐƵďƐƚĂŶƚŝĂƚĞĚĐŽŵƉůĂŝŶƚƐĨƌŽŵ
ŵĞŵďĞƌƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐƚŚĂƚŵĂLJǁĂŶƚƚŚĞdĂŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵĚŝƐĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞĚ͕ŝƐƉƌŽŶĞƚŽĞƌƌŽƌĂƚďĞƐƚ
ĂŶĚƉƌŽŶĞƚŽďŝĂƐĂƚǁŽƌƐƚ͘&/K^ĐĂŶŽŶůLJƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƚŚĂƚ'ƌĞĞŶdĂŐWƌŽŐƌĂŵĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞďĞ
ŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĚďLJŵĞĂŶƐŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞĞǀŝĚĞŶĐĞŽĨĐŽŶĨŝƌŵĞĚ'ƌĞĞŶdĂŐǀŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘
&ŝŶĂůůLJ͕&/K^ŚŝŐŚůLJƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƚƌƵĞŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽĨďŽƚŚĚŽŐƐĂŶĚƉĞŽƉůĞďĞŽďũĞĐƚŝǀĞůLJ
ƐƚƵĚŝĞĚďLJŵĞĂƐƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŚĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚƉƌĞǀĂůĞŶĐĞŽĨǁŝůĚůŝĨĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŽŶKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞ͘dŚĞǀŝƚĂůŝƚLJ
ŽĨǁŝůĚůŝĨĞƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŽŶKƉĞŶ^ƉĂĐĞŝƐƚŚĞƉƌŝŵĂƌLJĐŽŶĐĞƌŶ͕ǁŚĞƌĞĂƐŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞďLJ
ĚŽŐƐŽƌƉĞŽƉůĞŝƐĂƐĞĐŽŶĚĂƌLJŝƐƐƵĞ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌƚŚŝƐŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJĨŽƌ&/K^ƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŝŶƉƵƚƚŽǁĂƌĚĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶĐĞŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐ͘
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 22
ATTACHMENTC
MonitoringReviewPublicProcessSummary
WhatWeDid
Aspartofthecommitmenttoadaptivemanagement,OSMPstaffmonitoredhoweffectivetheVoice
andSightTag(Tag)Programwasinmeetingseveralofitsobjectives.Workingwithmembersofthe
communityin2005,staffdevelopedindicatorsandmeasurestoassessthesuccessoftheprogram.
Measurementsweretakensixmonthsbeforeimplementation,sixmonthsafterimplementationbegan,
andthenagain3½yearslatertoseeiftheeffectsoftheprogrampersisted).Staffproducedareport
describingwheretheprogramwasmeetingitsgoals,andwhereitwasfallingshort.Thereportalso
consideredtheresultsinthelightofsimilarstudiesandsuggestedwaystoimprovethesituationbased
uponwhatisunderstoodfromstudiesofparkandopenspacevisitorsinBoulderandelsewhere.
Uponreviewingthereport,somecommunitymembers,includingmembersofthreeimportantgroups
raisedconcernsaboutthewaythemonitoringhadbeenconductedandhowtheresultswerepresented.
Thesegroupsare:FriendsInterestedinDogsandOpenSpace(FIDOS),themaindogadvocacygroupin
Boulder,theOpenSpaceBoardofTrusteesandtheCityCouncil.Staffobtainedasmuchspecific
informationabouttheconcernsofthesethreegroupsaswecould,consideredifandhowtheconcerns
mightaffectthevalidityoftheƌĞƉŽƌƚ͛Ɛconclusions.Staffdidnotidentifysignificantmethodological
issuesfromthecommentsprovided.
StaffcommittedtoreviewtheTagProgrammonitoringandimproveitslevelofcommunityacceptance
andunderstandingaswellasutilityforfuturepolicydecisions.CouncilandtheOSBThadidentified
changestotheTagProgramforimplementationinearly2014.Tohavemethodsinplacetocollecta
samplebeforetheendoftheyear,staffdesignedatwopartreviewprocess:
I.Askedforcommentsfromanyonewillingtosharetheirideasabout:
a.whatissuestheysawwithK^DW͛Ɛapproachtomonitoringtheeffectivenessofthe
VoiceandSightTagProgram,and
b.WhatOSMPcoulddotoimprovetheTagProgrammonitoringbeforebeginninganother
roundofdatacollection.
II.Soughtcommentsandideasfromasmallergroupofstakeholderswhohavebeeninvolvedwith
OSMPmanagementandtheTagProgram.
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 23
PartI
Staffcontactedthousandsofpeopleviaemailincludingthosewhosigneduptobekeptinformedabout
OSMPissues,voiceandsighttagholdersandcommunityinterestgroups.Anoticewasplacedonthe
OSMPWebpage.Eachoftheseoutreachtechniquesinvitedinterestedindividualstosubmittheir
responsestothefollowingquestionsviaanonlineformorbyemailing,faxingordroppingofftheir
commentsattheOSMPoffices:
Whatchangestothemonitoringmethoddoyoubelievewouldimprovedatacollectionor
statisticalanalysisofindicators?Why?
Whatchangestothestatisticalanalysisdoyoubelievewouldofferbetterinformationupon
whichtobaseadaptivemanagementdecisions?
WhatothermethodstomonitorcomplianceorconflictmightOSMPconsider?
WhatWeHeardPartI
Approximately140commentsweresubmitted.Many(110)referredtotheTagProgrambutdidnot
specificallyaddressmonitoring.Thosecommentswereprovidedtostaffmembersworkingon
improvementstotheTagProgramitself.Asmallernumber(30)ofcommentsspecificallyaddressedthe
monitoringprogram.Thefollowingthemesemerged:
Considerlessexpensiveandstaffintensivewaysofcollectingdata
Interactdirectlywithvisitorsonthetrails.
o
Visitoradministeredsurveysorcommentforms.
o
Encouragepeopletosubmitvideosshowingspecificexperiencestheyhavewithoff
o
leashdogs
Collectinformationabouttheexperiencesofneighborswholiveadjacenttoornear
o
OSMP,especiallyneartrailsandtrailheadswithvoiceandsightcontrolastheyobserve
agreatdealofactivitybyvisitors,includingdogguardians,neartheirhomes.
Usevolunteerstomonitor
o
StoprelatingdogexcrementremovalmonitoringwiththeTagProgrambecauseitisnota
centralobjective.Visitorswithdogsonleasharejustaslikelytoleaveexcrementbehind.
ŽŶ͛ƚtrytomeasureeverytypeofconflict,itisinherentlysubjective.Focusonbehaviorsthat
arespecificallycalledoutasbeingprohibited,ratherthan͞ƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůůLJĐŽŶĨůŝĐƚŝǀĞ͘͟
Involveexpertsinthefieldofdogbehaviorinthemonitoringdesign.
Whilenotsomuchatheme,itbecameapparentthatitwouldbeusefulifOSMPcould
contributetoasharedunderstandingabouttheseverityandscopeoftheeffectsofdogs.There
isaverywiderangeofbeliefsabouttheseverityandscopeofproblemsassociatedwithdogs
someofwhichmightbenarrowedbymonitoring.
Therearesomemembersofthecommunitywhobelievethattheeffectsofdogson
o
wildlifeisnotwellsubstantiated,andbelievetheconceptualmodelonwhichtheTag
Programandmonitoringisbasedisflawed.Theysuggestthatmonitoringdollarsshould
beinvestedinabetterunderstandingoftheseverityandscopeoftheeffectsofdogson
wildlife.
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 24
Somepeoplefeelthatafewindividuals,perhapssensitivetoorfearfulofdogs,whoby
o
complainingareresponsibleforcreatingaperceptionofaproblemthatismuchlarger
thanthereality.Peoplesharingthisperspectivetendtorecommendthatmonitoringbe
moreobjective.
Otherswrotetoexpressthattheyfeltthatthemonitoringunderestimatedthetrue
o
extentoftheperceivednegativeeffectsofdogsbecauseonlyaportionofadogƉĂƌƚLJ͛Ɛ
visitwasobserved.
Stillothersfeltthatthereareonlyahandfulofdogguardianswhoregularlyviolate
o
regulationsorgenerallyacceptablebehavior;andthatOSMPcharacterizestheentire
populationofdogguardiansasthese͞ďĂĚĂĐƚŽƌƐ͘͟
SomemembersofthecommunityexpressedaconcernthatOSMPstaffshouldnotbe
conductingthemonitoringbecausea)therearemoreimportantmanagementtasksandb)
becauseofabeliefthatstaffmemberslackobjectivity.
PartII
Thesecondpartofthemonitoringreviewinvolvedasmallergroupofstakeholderswhohavebeen
involvedwithOSMPmanagement,andtheTagProgram.OSMPstaffinvitedmembersofFIDOS,local
environmentalorganizations,theHumaneSocietyoftheBoulderValley,andaformermemberofthe
OSBTtomeetanddiscusshowtoprovideusefulmonitoringinformationtoinformfutureTagProgram
policydecisions.Thespecificobjectivesofthemeetingwereto:
a)Gooverquestionsorcommentsaboutthecompendiumofcomments.
b)Giveeachgroupanopportunitytodescribethesituationfromtheirperspectives,anddescribethe
changestheywouldliketosee;and
c)Identifyactionsthattherewasconsensuswouldrepresentbeneficialandfeasibleimprovementsto
themonitoringmethods.
AformerOSBTmemberthatwasinvitedtoattendhadalastminuteworkcommitmentandcouldnot
makethemeeting.
WhatWe,ĞĂƌĚͶWĂƌƚII
FIDOSrespondedwithawrittenstatement(attached),andchosenottoattend.Theirrecommendation
wasthatthecityshoulduseconvictionsforvoiceandsightcontroloffensesasthemeasureof
effectivenessoftheTagProgram.FIDOSalsorecommendedthatstaffinvestinresearchtobetter
understandtheecologicaleffectsofdogs.Staffhadshared&/K^͛Ɛrecommendationswiththeother
membersofthegroupinadvance,andallparticipantsmadeanefforttoincludeandconsiderthose
recommendationsinthediscussion.
Thegroupdetermineditwasunrealistictotrytomakemodificationstothemonitoringmethodologyso
thecollectionofdataandreportingofresultswouldnotbecriticized.Reviewersbelievethatthestrong
responsetochangesindogmanagementisrelatedtothedeepconnectionspeoplehavewiththeirdogs
andwiththeirexperiencesonOSMP.Consequently,whenresultsfrommonitoringdescribeasituation
inawayconsistentwithwhatmotivatesaparticularperspective,theresultsareseenassupportiveand
inturnenjoysomelevelofsupportfromastakeholdergroup,andcriticismofmethodsshouldbe
expectedasunavoidablewhentheresultsareseenascontrarytotheinterestsofastakeholdergroup.
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 25
Themonitoringreviewgroupalsodiscussedtherelationshipbetweenthereliabilityofdataandthe
investmentoftime/moneyindatacollection;andhowevenlargeinvestmentsdonotensurethatdata
willberelieduponasthesolebasisfordecisions.GroupmembersdiscussedhowOSMPmightbeable
toimproverelianceupondatabyimprovingrelationshipswithdogguardianswhoseetheprogramas
doghatersandaredistrustfuloftheinformationgeneratedbystaff.Itwassuggested,forexample,that
OSMPcouldrelyupon͞ƐŝŵƉůĞƚƌƵƚŚƐ͟aboutthedepartmentsuchaswiderangeofopportunities
providedfortheenjoymentofdogguardians,thenumberandproportionofstaffwhoaredog
guardians,orstoriesaboutƐƚĂĨĨ͛Ɛrelationshipsandworkwithanimalwelfareorganizations.Another
suggestionwasthatOSMPcouldregularlypublishamapshowingthelocationandnatureofcode
violations(muchlikethepoliceĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚΖƐ͛crimemap)sothatmembersofthecommunitycould
judgeforthemselvestheleveloftheproblematagiventimeandlocation,andchoosetovisitplaceson
thebasisofwhattheysawonthemap.
NeitherrepresentativesoftheenvironmentalgroupsnortheHSBVhadspecificobjectionstothe
monitoringprotocol.Thegroupbegandiscussedtheconcernsraisedbycommunitymembersthrough
thewebcommentformandrecommendedthatstaffconsiderthefollowingimprovements:
Removethemostsubjectiveobservationsfromtheprotocol,especiallywherethebehavior
beingobservedwas͞ƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůůLJĐŽŶĨůŝĐƚŝǀĞ͟butnotprohibited.
ChangethewayaĚŽŐ͛ƐresponsetoaŐƵĂƌĚŝĂŶ͛Ɛcommandisassessedbyestablishingatime
frameratherthananumberoftimesacommandisgiven.
SeparatemonitoringofexcrementremovalfromtheTagmonitoringprogram.Excrement
removalisnotdirectlyacomponentoftheTagProgram.
AddĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞinformation,whichwasnotcollectedtocharacterizetheentirepopulationof
dogguardians,butmayhelpdecisionmakersbetterunderstandthesituation.Recognizing
thepotentialproblemsofbasingdecisionsolelyonthesenumbers,describethelimitations
andstrengthsofthedataandthepotentialconsequencesofusingthedataformakingpolicy
decisions.ExamplesofthesetypeofdataincludeTalliesof:
Summonsesandconvictionsfor
o
Voiceandsightoffenses
Otherrelatedoffenses(e.g.,aggressiveanimal,failuretoprotectwildlife,off
leashviolations,violationsofadministrativerulesbyguardianwithoffleash
dogsaffectingwildlife)
IncidentsandWarning
o
Voiceandsightoffenses/offleashviolations
Otherrelatedoffenses
Offleashdogrelatedmedical/veterinaryincidentsnotresultinginawarning
orsummons
Unsolicitedcommentsregardingoffleashdogs
o
Email,
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 26
Onlinecommentform,
Telephonecalls,
Rangerobservationsandperspectives
o
Solicitedresponsestospecificquestions
o
ResidentSurvey
VisitorSurvey
OnSiteCommentForm/SelfAdministeredSurvey
Homeowner/NeighbortoTrail/TrailheadSurvey
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 27
This page is intentionally left blank.
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 28
This page is intentionally left blank.
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 32
ATTACHMENTE
OpenSpaceandMountainParks
VoiceandSightTagProgram
DogandGuardianBehaviors
Dogchasingperson(negative)
DogonDogphysicalcontactresultingininjurytodog
Dogchasingordisturbingwildlife
Dogchasingordisturbinglivestock
Dogchasingdog*(atleastoneguardianattemptedtointervene)
Dogchasingdog*(guardiansdidnotintervene)
DogflushingWildlife*(causingtoflee)
DogJumping*(notinitiatedbyothervisitornoinjury)
DogLicking*(notinitiatedbyothervisitor,noinjury)
Dogpawingperson*(notinitiatedbyothervisitor,noinjury)
Dogsniffingperson*(notinitiatedbyothervisitor,noinjury)
Dogcontactingpersoninanotherway(notinitiatedbyothervisitor,noinjury)
Dogbarksrepeatedly*
Guardianrepeatedlycallingdog*
Otherbehaviorsinvolvingdogsbyguardians,othervisitorsordogsthatmightbe
consideredconflictive
Visitor(notguardian)kicking,hitting,orotherwiseattemptingtoactuallyharmdog
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 33
This page is intentionally left blank.
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 34
ATTACHMENTF
OpenSpaceandMountainParks
VoiceandSightTagProgram
OrdinancesandCategoriesforReportingSummonses,ConvictionsandIncidents
VoiceandSightTagOrdinance(6116B.R.C)
Dogschasing,harassingordisturbingwildlife
Dogschasing,harassingordisturbinglivestock
Dogscharging,chasingorbehavingaggressivelytowardhumans
Dogscharging,chasingorbehavingaggressivelytowardotherdogs
LeashPossession
Dogsoutofsightofguardian
Morethan2dogsoffleash
Dogsfailtorespondappropriatelytoguardian'scommand
DogOffLeash(enjoyingV&SprivilegeswithoutenrollmentTagProgram)
Unleasheddogsonleashonlytrails
Ordinancefor͞KƚŚĞƌRelatedSummonsesandŽŶǀŝĐƚŝŽŶƐ͟
CityDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͛ƐRulesͶsŝŽůĂƚŝŽŶƐofadministrativerulesbyaguardianwithanoffleash
dogestablishedspecificallyforwildlifeprotection(833)
Failingtoremovedogexcrement(6118)
AggressiveAnimalProhibited(6120)
FailuretoProtectWildlife(835)
FailuretoProtectLivestock(835)
CityDĂŶĂŐĞƌ͛ƐRulesͶViolationsofadministrativerulesbyaguardianwithanoffleash
dogprohibitingoffleashdogforreasonsnotspecifictowildlifeprotection(833)
AGENDA ITEM 9 PAGE 35