[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Green Tag Program - First Reading Questions

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Armstead, Steve

Responses to the questions asked of staff by council member Cowles regarding the Voice and Sight Tag Program.
 
Fundamental Questions

What is the impetus for investigating and then proposing changes to the Green Tag program? Is it primarily because in the Visitor Master Plan, we committed to doing
 an analysis of the success of the program at some time in the future? Or is it to address certain conflicts that have arisen on Open Space?
 
Staff Response:
The Voice and Sight Tag (Tag) Program was described in the 2005 Visitor Master Plan (VMP as experimental.  The program was implemented adaptively
 (per the guiding principles of the VMP) with the objectives of improving awareness of the requirements of voice and sight control and improving compliance with voice and sight control regulations.  A monitoring component was included with the implementation
 of the program to provide information about whether the program was successfully achieving its objectives. 

 
Staff evaluated changes for several reasons:

•     
Dog and off-leash related conflicts remain one of the top sources of conflict reported by visitors to Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP),

•     
Monitoring concluded that several compliance factors revealed results lower than standards set in the VMP and that these measures did not show decreases in conflicts
 over time,

•     
City Council identified the Tag Program among a number of overarching issues for OSMP staff review in response to concerns about the long-term sustainability
 of visitor services and environmental resources, and

•     
The Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT) has recommended that staff examine potential enhancements to the Tag Program.
 
Question
Furthermore, what statistics do we have that would document Code or Rule infractions on Open Space—infractions by all users?
 
Staff Response:
OSMP tracks the number of citations issued by rangers.  The following table summarizes the number of citations issued by rangers during 2013 for activities on OSMP.
 




Infraction


Number




No voice and sight control tag for off-leash dog


123




Dog off-leash in leash required area


86




Dog out of voice and sight control


73




Dogs prohibited


26




Dog at large-general


12




Camping



57




Tent Structure


41




Aggressive animal


7




Failure to remove animal excrement


7




Mountain biking prohibited


4




Failure to protect wildlife


2




Hot air balloons prohibited


2




Permit required for commercial use


3




Use of horse (livery ) without a permit


1




Discharging firearm


1




 
Question Regarding Cost
What is the annual cost of the current Green Tag program, and how does that compare to the additional proposed cost of the revised
 Green Tag program?
Staff Response:
Implementing the existing Tag Program occurred over a two-year timeframe from 2005-06.  After program implementation, annual program
 operating expenses remained fairly steady.  The process to make the proposed revisions to the Tag Program will follow a similar approach with implementation occurring over a two-year period (2014-2015) then transitioning to more consistent operating expenses
 after implementation. The table below summarizes and compares the program implementation and ongoing annual operation expenses of the existing program with the proposed revised program.  For the purposes of the cost estimate, one full time equivalent (FTE)
 is equal to 2,080 hrs of staff time.
 





 


Equipment, Materials and Services



Seasonal Staff (FTEs)


Standard Staff

(FTEs)






Implementation Costs


 


 


 




Existing Program —
Implementation (2005-2006)


$67,800


1.3 FTEs


2.6  FTEs




Proposed Revised Program —Implementation (2014-2015)


$201,630


4.5 FTEs


3.9 FTEs




Annual Operating costs


 


 


 




Existing Program —Annual Costs Post Implementation


$3,450


-


.5 FTE





Proposed Revised Program —Annual Costs Post Implementation


$25,190


1 FTE



.8 FTE





 
The OSBT and City Council both supported a cost recovery model for the Tag Program.  The three-tiered fee structure based upon
 residency is structured to achieve cost recovery.  Increased registration fees coupled with a requirement for periodic renewal were modeled to generate program revenues adequate to cover program costs.  The program cost estimates are based on information prepared
 for the revised program based upon a 2014 start date.  Estimates may need to be adjusted to account for council-directed revisions and the later (2015) start date.  

 
Substantial staff time is required to plan, coordinate and implement the recommended Tag Program changes.  During 2014, staff will
 develop systems to administer the revised program and integrate information from the Tag Program with dog license information as well as to design and schedule presentations of the education session.  Under the proposed recommendations, changes will become
 effective in 2015.  After full implementation in 2015, staff predicts annual costs and staffing needs will be substantially reduced and remain relatively constant.

 
Staff estimates that over the two-year time frame approximately 8.4 FTEs or $532,000 of standard and seasonal OSMP staff time will
 be necessary to plan, coordinate and implement the proposed program enhancements. This estimate includes approximately 4.4 FTEs ($295,000) to prepare program changes in 2014 and 4.0 FTEs ($237,000) for first year administration of the revised program.  Implementation
 will be a high priority for the department, and existing staff will be assigned to assist with the Tag Program.  Of the 8.4 FTEs needed during 2014 and 2015, approximately half can be allocated from existing staff, mostly standard positions. An additional
 2 FTEs ($87,000) of seasonal positions will be needed in 2014 and 2.5 FTEs ($109,000) will be needed in 2015. 

 
Non-personnel program costs are estimated at $201,630 for the first two years and $25,190 annually thereafter.  These expenses include revisions
 to the online registration and record management system and links to the city’s dog license program, space and supplies for the education sessions, new information and regulation signs, and other materials and supplies.
 
Question about Two Strikes
I am confused by part of the Amendment to 6-13-5, B.R.C., the text of which amendment can be found at the bottom of packet page
 133. Subsection (b) provides for the loss of Green Tag privilege on the second conviction within two years of three numbered offenses. The third numbered offense which could lead to suspension of Green Tag privileges would be a dog running at large “on open
 space land or on other city properties where Voice and Sight Control privileges are authorized by that section.”
Question: 
Isn’t it true that Voice and Sight Control privileges only exist on certain Open Space land, and that Voice and Sight Control privileges do not apply to City land
 that is not part owned or managed by Open Space?
 
Staff Response:
There are three city-owned lands that allow voice and sight control which are not part of the Open Space and Mountain Parks system.  These lands include areas by the Boulder
 Reservoir, Coot Lake and the dog park at Howard Hueston Park.   
 
Question:   
Is it correct to say, then, that having an unleashed dog in a City Park where leashes are required does NOT count as a violation?
 
Staff Response:
Currently, this violation does count as a strike towards the suspension of privileges.  Please see B.R.C. 6-13-5(a).  Under the proposed ordinance, it will not count as
 a strike. 
 
Question:     
We have heard from so many dog guardians that they fear chasing a squirrel up a tree would cause them to lose privileges for their pet, can staff draft an exception
 for chasing a squirrel up a tree?
 
Staff Response:
Staff would like to draw attention to two points regarding concerns expressed about a dog “chasing a squirrel up a tree” and the loss of voice and sight privileges.  First is a clarification of wildlife
 protection laws, enforcement and links to suspension of privileges.  Second is a clarification of the ecological significance of wildlife protection laws. 

 
1)  Wildlife Protection Laws
— The importance of protecting wildlife from dogs harassing (which includes chasing) wildlife is codified in state law, which the Boulder Revised Code parallels as shown in the table below.  The state
 statute defines “harass”.  Although city code does not include this definition, rangers base their enforcement on behavior consistent with the state definition.  As well, the state definition would be presented as persuasive authority to a judge or jury if
 a charge were to go to trial.
 
 





Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.)

 

33-6-128. Damage or destruction of dens or nests - harassment of wildlife



Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C) 

 

8-3-5. Wildlife Protection.

 




(2) Unless otherwise allowed by commission rule or regulation,
it is unlawful for any person to knowingly or negligently allow or direct a dog which he owns or which is under his control to harass wildlife, whether or not the wildlife is actually injured by such dog.
 Any person who violates this subsection (2) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of two hundred dollars.

(24) "Harass" means to unlawfully endanger, worry, impede, annoy, pursue, disturb, molest, rally, concentrate, harry, chase, drive, herd, or torment wildlife.
 


 No owner or keeper of a dog shall negligently allow or direct such dog to harass wildlife or livestock, whether or not the wildlife is actually
 injured by such dog, within any park, recreation area, or open space, or other property of the city, including, without limitation, any street or other right of way controlled or maintained by the city. This prohibition does not apply to any lessee
 of such property using a working dog to control livestock on the leasehold.




   
In the proposed changes to the Tag Program, convictions of B.R.C. 8-3-5 violations after court proceedings would cause suspension of voice and sight privileges.  It is important to note that charges
 for this violation must be for incidents where the guardian negligently allowed or directed a dog to harass wildlife or livestock. The standard for “negligence” is whether the dog guardian failed to exercise the degree of care that
 would be exercised by the ordinarily reasonable and prudent inhabitant of the city under the same or similar circumstances. Please see, BRC 1-2-1(b).  Rangers issue citations for these incidents when they determine there is negligence in dog control. 
 Moreover, guardians charged with this violation have the right to demand a trial, where the city would be required to prove this alleged negligence beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Voice and sight control per the city’s code requires that a guardian must prevent their dog from engaging in the behavior of “Chasing, harassing or disturbing wildlife
 or livestock.”   The proposed changes to the Tag Program recommend including convictions of the voice and sight control (6-1-16) offense among those offenses where two convictions in two years would cause suspension of privileges.  Rangers may issue a Voice
 and Sight (6-1-16) violation in addition to charges for Failing to Protect Wildlife (8-3-5) or instead of charges for 8-3-5 where incidents do not meet the negligence standard required in 8-3-5 but where the guardian was unable to use voice and sight control
 to prevent disturbance to wildlife.  
 
2) 
Significance of Dogs Chasing Wildlife — 
Unlike humans and their pets, wildlife does not have the luxury of leisure time, and all activities can be crucial to their survival.  Harassment or chasing disrupts required maintenance
 activities such as feeding, resting, tending to young, courtship or predator avoidance.  It causes changes in physiology and behavior, and takes time away from these necessary activities.  Dogs, which are seen as predators to wildlife, force wildlife movement. 
 This movement causes avoidable energy expenditure and may take them outside their home territory, take them away from nests or young, advertise their location or the location of their young to a natural predator, or take them into an area where they may face
 a threat from other individuals of their species.  This unnecessary energy expenditure may directly conflict with overwinter survival strategies, their ability to provide for their young or respond to other stressors in the environment including weather, predators
 or disease.  
 
Dogs can be directly or indirectly responsible for wildlife mortality.  Indirect effects may be unseen by the dogs’ human companion, but are nonetheless significant for
 wildlife.  Cumulative stressors (i.e., deep snow, flooding, extreme weather, food shortages, low temperatures, disease) act to depress body condition. Harassment by dogs may be the (avoidable) difference between life and death for some animals, especially
 in already-stressed individuals.  
 
Because wildlife potentially face so many cumulative challenges to their survival or ability to successfully reproduce, it is important for guardians to prevent the avoidable
 and additional stress of wildlife being chased or harassed by dogs.  Avoiding this unnecessary stress will help give the wildlife the best chance to respond to natural challenges and survive while successfully raising offspring that will contribute to the
 next generation- leading to healthy wildlife populations on OSMP.   
 
Question about the proposed One Year Term of the Green Tag license
What is the reason for the proposed one-year renewal term of green tags? How will that contribute to the success of the program? See p. 128.
 
Staff Response:
Requiring a one-year renewal for voice and sight control tags is to ensure that participants are meeting the requirement that their dogs are appropriately vaccinated
 against rabies while providing a consistency with dog licensing requirements.   City of Boulder dog licenses must be renewed annually to ensure rabies vaccinations are current.  An annual renewal also supports the need to have accurate information about program
 participation and participants which helps in having current contact information and reporting accurate statistics on participation numbers.  

 
Question of meaning
I do not understand the meaning of the italicized phrase in the sentence below, found at packet page 128, in a table with the row heading, “6-13-4 Voice and Sight
 Control Evidence Tag Requirements”:
Requires attendance at an informational session for all guardians prior to applying for participation in the Tag Program
and within the past five years for renewing participation.
 
Staff Response:
The statement “and within the past five years for renewing participation”
refers to the proposed requirement that guardians attend the education session at least every five years.
 
Question of Fairness
Some dog guardians are asking why they alone are subject to losing privileges on Open Space for serial violations. What is the staff response to that?

 
Staff Response:
Dog guardians have the opportunity to exercise voice and sight control privileges only after agreeing to the terms and conditions of managing a dog under voice and sight
 control.  City staff are not aware of any other municipal open space programs that allow the extensive opportunities for off leash dogs provided by the City of Boulder.  This privilege comes with a need for assurances that off leash dogs are in fact under
 control when participating in the Tag Program.  Program privileges are based on a guardian’s agreeing to the requirements of voice and sight control and complying with the program regulations.  The potential for suspension of privileges is also a term of complying
 with the expectations of the program.  The suspension of privileges has occurred with guardians who have repeatedly violated the requirements of voice and sight control or for specific circumstances of aggressive dogs.   Reinstatement of privileges can be
 accomplished by completing a demonstration test and re-attending the education class. 

 
The loss of voice and sight privileges does not mean that guardians can no longer be accompanied by their dogs on open space unless otherwise mandated by a judge.  Even
 when voice and sight privileges are suspended, guardians and their leashed dogs are welcome on OSMP trails and properties where dogs are permitted.
 
Similarly, commercial use on OSMP is allowed only after a commercial use permit is obtained which dictates special terms of use.  Comparable to the Tag Program, this permitted
 activity can be suspended for rule infractions or violating the terms of the permit. 

 
The City of Boulder also has services or locations where privileges can be suspended for rule violations.  Examples of services include the library and recreational facilities. 
 Additionally, the Boulder Municipal Court can issue no trespass orders for specific violations and circumstances preventing a person from returning to certain areas for a specified timeframe.  Example locations include the Municipal Campus, Central Park, and
 the Pearl Street Mall.  
 
Question about Rabies Vaccination
Could an exception to rabies vaccination be provided for older or sick dogs, where a vet certifies that a rabies vaccination would
 propose a risk to the dog?
Staff Response:
The exception already exists in the code.  An amendment to 6-13-4  last year allows applicants to provide proof of current rabies vaccination
as provided in section 6-1-3, “Rabies Vaccinations.” Section 6-1-3(a) says:

6-1-3.  Rabies Vaccinations.


(a)  Every owner or keeper of every dog, cat, or ferret over four months of age shall maintain a current rabies vaccination on each such animal. The vaccination
 required in this section shall be made by a veterinarian licensed by the State of Colorado using a vaccine licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture.
The requirements of this subsection shall not apply when the applicant produces a waiver issued by a veterinarian licensed by the State of Colorado affirming that the animal is medically unable to receive
 the required vaccination. This waiver must have been issued by the licensed veterinarian no more than one year before the date of the alleged violation.
 
 
 
Steve Armstead
Environmental Planner
Open Space and Mountain Parks
City of Boulder
armsteads at bouldercolorado.gov
720-564-2059