From the Styx by Peggy Tibbetts

Welcome to my little town of Silt. I found this photo on the internets. It’s not the best, but it shows how panoramic our sky is here. And the river — which is a big part of our lives. This is the south bank of the Colorado River looking west at the Roan Plateau at sunset. Silt is the little cluster of buildings and trees across the river. Yessiree — a river runs through it.

For those of you who don’t live here, this photo was taken from River Park – the dog park I’m all fired up about. Maybe this helps you understand why.

I should’ve posted a blank blog last weekend: Gone Skiing

Snowmass was awesome last Friday. Fresh snow and no lift lines. No one could get here because of the Denver blizzard. No, we didn’t get a blizzard. In Silt we got 4 inches of snow. The surrounding mountains got 20 inches. No blizzard this week either. Hasn’t started snowing here yet. We skied cross country 3 days up at West Elk. The trail is heavenly. The snowshoers and skiers have done an exceptional job packing the track.

To all my readers, thank you for taking precious time out of your lives to visit my blog. I offer you my humble thanks. I wish you all the best in the new year 2007.

Be sure to check out My Space.

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

left to right: Venus, Tod, Peggy, Zeus

Wishing you a Merry Christmas!

This photo was taken on December 9, at the overlook on the West Elk Ski Trail. The skiing is awesome already!

What preceded that Kodak moment amounted to dog wrestling. Mostly with Venus. She wouldn’t stand still. In the outtakes she’s a white blur. As you can see, Zeus knows the drill. He sits, waits for the beeps and smiles. What a pro!

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

ATTENTION RIVER PARK PEEPS !!

If you missed the December 11 Board Meeting, you can still speak about dogs at River Park during Public Comments at the January 8 Board of Trustees Meeting.

River Park WILL NOT be on the Agenda at the January 8 Board of Trustees Meeting. It is scheduled to be on the Agenda for January 22.

This means the Board can still hear Public Comments at the January 8 Meeting.

We pause for a procedural moment: When an issue is put on the Agenda, the Board cannot hear Public Comments about that topic. The public can sit in on the meeting and hear the discussion, but not comment.  Therefore, when an issue is NOT on the Agenda, then the Board is free to take Public Comments.

Here’s where things stand:

River Park Annexation: Even though the town owns the park, it resides in the county. In order for the Board to do anything with the park, they first have to annex it. 

Con: It’s fairly simple, if the Board doesn’t annex River Park, they can’t mess with it.

However …

Pro: We can’t put the genie back in the bottle. So let’s see this through and make sure River Park remains a leash-free dog park. Let’s get it in writing this time. Besides, Tod says he doesn’t think there’s any way the Board won’t vote in favor of annexation. So it’s a probably a done deal.

Having said that, if you are against annexation of River Park, then by all means speak out about it in a Letter to the Board and/or at Public Comments on January 8.

Looking Beyond Annexation

Mayor Pro-Tem Tod Tibbetts says: “In 2002, I was a Trustee when the Board voted to designate River Park as an undeveloped rest area; therefore allowing unleashed dogs in the park. The problem is, that motion was never codified into the ordinance. However I see no reason to change that designation, other than putting up a sign to that effect.”

Petition

The best way to insure that River Park is designated as a rest area where dogs are allowed off-leash is for the people to formally petition the Board of Trustees to amend the parks ordinance.

I am putting together that formal petition which will contain the language of the 2002 amendment he referred to above. I will keep you posted on the petition as it develops.

The downside is many of the park users live outside the city limits, so they will not be eligible to sign the petition. The rules are that signers have to be registered voters in the Town of Silt. I’m not sure what the ratio of inside/outside city limits is among park users. The upside is, I guess we will find out. However signers do not have to be park users, they can be friends and neighbors who support our cause.

We will need at least 65-70 signatures. I don’t think that will be a problem.

Public Comments

Speak out. We can show up again at the January 8 Meeting and speak on behalf of dogs off-leash at River Park again. Or against annexation. The more we talk, the more they have to listen. Come again and/or tell others to come. Keep talking about the issue when you meet other people at the park, or elsewhere.

You can also call the Town Hall and voice your opinion. The staff is keeping track of phone calls. You can also call individual Trustees and Mayor Moore.
 
Letters

Write a letter to the Board of Trustees and voice your opinion. I don’t want to give you a script that you can copy and paste, because the Trustees will pick up on that right away. Besides, I’m not into telling others what to think or say. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. If it comes from your heart, in your own words, your letter will carry a lot more weight.

If you have already sent your letter, thank you! Urge others to write letters.

As of today, Sheila McIntyre (Town Secretary) reported that letters and phone calls continue to come in.

Comments and Questions

Please feel free to use my blog comments section for your comments and/or questions. If you prefer to contact me privately, use email: peggyt@siltnet.net
Or call me, I’m in the book under Tod Tibbetts.

It’s really important that we keep this issue alive. Again, thank you!

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

BREAKING NEWS:

Colorado smog regulators consider crackdown on oil and gas wells
The Associated Press

DENVER (AP) — Four years after declaring itself cured of smog, Colorado’s most populous region is fighting off a relapse — rising ozone levels blamed on the booming oil and gas industry.

State air regulators meet Sunday to consider a crackdown on the drilling industry, which releases pollutants into the air from tanks that collect liquids and other drilling byproducts. The emissions react with sunlight to form ozone, the main ingredient of smog.

The state faces a July deadline from the federal Environmental Protection Agency to come up with a plan to reduce ozone along the Front Range from Denver’s southern suburbs north into Larimer and Weld counties, where rising demand for energy is driving a big increase in drilling.

The rare Sunday meeting of the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission will consider new rules for the industry. The board also will consider extending some regulation to oil and gas wells elsewhere in the state — the first time such rules would be imposed beyond the Front Range. Changes would be reviewed by the Legislature.

The struggles with ozone come just a few years after the Denver metro area wiped out much of the brown cloud that lay over it during the winter, sometimes obscuring views of the snowcapped Rockies. In 2002, the EPA declared the area in compliance with air quality standards.

“There’s so much riding on this rule-making: people’s health,” said Jeremy Nichols, director of Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action.

Ozone poses significant health risks, especially for young children and people with respiratory problems such as asthma.

The commission held contentious meetings in November, hearing testimony from the industry, environmentalists and western Coloradans who want the state to clamp down on quickly expanding oil and gas operations there.

The EPA has agreed to put off declaring the Front Range and other communities in violation of the Clean Air Act if they meet certain milestones.

But in November, the EPA gave all the areas but the Front Range until April 15, 2008, to do that after getting negative comments from Colorado communities and residents. The nine-county area encompassing the Front Range must meet the goals by July 1, although state officials said that could be extended if the state makes progress by spring.

The oil and gas industry, which is seeing record development rates, contends it is unfairly being singled out. But state officials have said while pollution from vehicles and other sources has decreased, emissions from oil and gas operations in northeastern Colorado have shot up.

Mike Silverstein, manager of planning and policy for the state air pollution control division, said the state has calculated that it must reduce smog-forming emissions from oil and gas wells. Colorado’s agreement with the EPA had envisioned the emissions totaling 146 tons a day by next year, but new projections show them reaching 233 tons.

In an industry-backed compromise, companies would have to reduce overall emissions from tanks that collect liquids and other byproducts by 73.3 percent. The tanks are routinely vented.

Environmentalists prefer the state’s original plan, which would have regulated tanks individually. Nichols of Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action said he could support the compromise if companies are required to cut pollution by at least 77 percent.

Although the rest of the state isn’t under the same pressure to reduce ozone, the air pollution control division wants to cap emissions from oil and gas wells all over to avoid problems. It would be the first time the industry’s emissions would be regulated outside the Front Range, although controls on the tanks wouldn’t be as stringent.

Western Coloradans who spoke during hearings last month said they want regulations as tough as in eastern Colorado. Some of the speakers said residents in Garfield County, a center of natural gas development, are reporting more health problems as drilling has increased.

Ken Wonstolen, senior vice president and general counsel for Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Association trade group, said the statewide proposal for collection tanks would cut emissions by roughly two-thirds. He said the regulations for internal combustion engines and other oil and gas equipment would be the same.

I cannot tell you how long we have waited for this. And even this is focused on Denver and the Front Range. But for Western Colorado just to be mentioned. To be paid any attention to all. We live in a smog-filled haze out here at the Gateway to the Rocky Mountain Wilderness. For years, we have been pleading with State Health Dept regulators to crack down.

At this point, all they have to do is come here and look up, and take a deep breath. 

Ah, yes. But is this so-called crackdown anything? Time will tell.
 
Meanwhile the gas well industry continues to run amuck in western Colorado.

People are suffering.

Both of the following articles appeared in The Paper (Post Independent) on December 3, and since then both articles  have been scrubbed from the archives. They also seem to be gradually disappearing from the internets altogether, I could only find one source for each article. So I decided to post both articles in their entirety so they don’t disappear down the memory hole.

I even found a couple versions of these articles edited to make the gas companies seem harmless and cooperative.

‘Collateral damage’
Residents fear murky effects of energy boom
By Judith Kohler

(AP) GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. - Elizabeth “Chris” Mobaldi sits on a couch in her home, explaining why she and her husband packed up and left “their little piece of heaven” in western Colorado.

“I was dying and I thought it was me hout,” Chris Mobaldi says in a halting, strangely accented voice. Steve Mobaldi jumps in to translate for his wife: “She was imagining that the house was killing her.”

Chris Mobaldi is 59, but looks at least 70. In the last decade, she has had two tumors removed from her pituitary gland and endured excruciating pain. The once lively blonde is rail-thin and frail and holds her hands out for balance when she walks.

The Mobaldis believe she suffers from foreign accent syndrome, a rare malady that can result from a stroke or brain injury, though she hasn’t been officially diagnosed with it. The Mobaldis believe her neurological system was damaged by drinking water that may have been contaminated by drilling fluids from wells around their former home about 60 miles to the east in Rifle.

State regulators say tests on the couple’s well water found no evidence of contamination. The Mobaldis are convinced that something happened, and they are suing several companies that worked on three wells near their home.

Other residents near the epicenter of the Rockies’ energy boom are starting to worry about their health, too, and who, exactly, is looking out for them. The federal government leaves much of the regulation up to state officials - and in Colorado, some residents fear there isn’t nearly enough oversight to keep them safe.

“We’re collateral damage out here,” said Bill Solinger, whose family has had respiratory problems, headaches and fatigue since gas drilling exploded in the Rifle area.

Most of the regulation of Colorado’s oil and gas industry falls to the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a state agency charged with promoting energy development. The commission has agreements with the state health department to enforce clean-water and hazardous-waste laws, though it has no health experts on staff.

The Oil and Gas Accountability Project in Durango and other groups recently asked the commission and the health department to require detailed disclosure of all chemicals used in oil and gas production, and to require that the effects of the chemicals be monitored.

The health department said it doesn’t have “the resources, capabilities or authority” to demand the information. The commission, meanwhile, said it believes it has the authority but “is not aware of a need for those requirements.”

Yet complaints - from foul odors to bloody noses to fatigue and pain - are increasing in areas around gas wells in Colorado, New Mexico, Alabama and Alberta, Canada, said Lisa Sumi, research director for the accountability project.

“There are little clusters of people getting sick,” Sumi said.

The federal government has exempted oil and gas exploration and production from some clean-water and hazardous-waste laws. Among the exemptions is hydraulic fracturing, which injects water, sand and chemicals underground to break down barriers and help release oil or gas for extraction.

Wes Wilson, an engineer in the Denver office of the Environmental Protection Agency, has publicly disputed a study by the agency that said hydraulic fracturing in coalbed methane gas wells doesn’t endanger drinking water. He contends there is a distinct lack of oversight by the government on potential health issues involving oil and gas.

“Congress gave us broad enough authority to investigate public health concerns. The fact that we’re not is appalling,” said Wilson, with EPA for 34 years.

Ken Wonstolen, general counsel for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association trade group, said federal law gives the public access to information about chemicals the industry uses. He said industry supports monitoring and analysis of the chemicals, but added that he’s not aware of oil and gas workers experiencing the problems described by area residents.

Duh. That’s because gas workers don’t drink water from contaminated wells.

How stupid do they think we are?

Bruce Baizel, staff attorney for the accountability project, said disclosure is required only when large volumes are involved, not individual wells, and companies often claim the information is proprietary.

Brian Macke, the oil and gas commission director, noted that the state fined EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) $371,200 in 2004 after gas leaked into a creek south of Silt and was traced to one of the company’s wells. Some of the money is funding a two-year study of whether gas operations are causing health problems.

“We have a very extensive program for regulating oil and gas,” Macke said. “We’ve very much expanded our requirements for protecting public health, safety and welfare.”

In July, the commission added 11 new positions, six of which will work directly in the field as inspectors.

“For any state agency to receive help with this many more people is a real demonstration of the recognition by everybody that business is booming,” Macke said.

The agency’s policy is to respond within 24 hours to health complaints, Macke said.

In the Mobaldis’ case, he said, staff members talked to the couple and have sampled their well several times since 1997. They have never found evidence of chemicals or gas.

Air quality monitoring by Garfield County, where the Mobaldis used to live, hasn’t turned up toxins at hazardous levels. Jim Rada, head of the county’s environmental health program, said spills or high winds can result in periodic spikes, but so far, readings have been well below levels considered dangerous.

In the face of growing numbers of people with illnesses, this can only mean that the bar has been set too high. There ARE toxins in the air – they just aren’t “considered dangerous.” It’s sickening – literally – how data manipulation and semantics take precedence over peoples’ health and well-being.

Still, Rada said he doesn’t dismiss the health complaints. He said he is frustrated medical experts can’t provide more definitive answers.

“I don’t think there’s been enough research done to show or prove that chronic exposure or sporadic exposure to low levels of those compounds doesn’t cause illness. We don’t have that information,” Rada said.

An official with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment said the explosive energy development is taxing staff.

“We’re all just trying to get a grip on the sheer number of new facilities out there and the impacts,” said Mike Silverstein, manager of planning and policy for the agency’s air pollution control division, which has proposed new statewide pollution standards for the industry.

In the past, well sites likely didn’t get the attention they deserved because they were viewed as minor sources of potential pollution, Silverstein said.

“But now, there are so many of them,” he said.

The Bureau of Land Management expects more than 10,000 new wells to be drilled in western Colorado’s Piceance Basin alone in the next 20 years.

Karen and Tim Trulove weren’t alarmed when an occasional well was punched in the rolling hills around their 40-acre plot near Silt. But the wells have gotten closer, with one now only 200 yards from their house.

“The noise, the dust, the bright lights in our windows all night long - we lived with that for over three years,” Karen Trulove said.

Two years ago, Trulove said, she began getting headaches, nausea, fatigue and dizziness. Last spring, she said, she let her dog out and was hit by “this blast of fumes” from the well behind their house. The next day she was sick.

The Truloves have bought land 30 miles away and plan to move soon from the house they designed and built.

“My life is just over compared to what it used to be,” said Trulove, 51, who used to work in real estate, ran her own framing shop and rode the horses she and her husband raise. “The people who are doing this, the drillers, the companies, are above the law when it comes to drilling for natural gas.”

The Mobaldis are frustrated, too. Steve Mobaldi said doctors have blamed everything from menopause to psychiatric problems for his wife’s illnesses while a few have looked seriously at environmental causes.

“The health department’s turning their backs and closing their eyes and saying, ‘We don’t know anything about it,”‘ he said. “It’s insane.”

Meanwhile The Fox (COGCC) continues to provide a safe haven for the gas well industry, in spite of the ever-increasing evidence and outcry. The Western Colorado Congress, Grand Valley Citizens Alliance, and other groups and individuals have been beating this drum for years.
It’s obvious no one cares.  

Neighbors Of Gas Wells Complain Of Health Problems
By Judith Kohler

(AP) DENVER After her work on federal advisory boards and with environmental groups, Colorado native Theo Colborn was looking forward to returning to the small-town pace of Paonia.

But the record energy development occurring about 90 miles north of Colborn’s hometown in western Colorado scuttled any plans she had of slowing down. She and other researchers at the Paonia-based, nonprofit Endocrine Disruption Exchange are poring over scientific journals and scrambling to identify the chemicals used by energy companies to determine if there’s a link between natural gas operations and area residents’ health complaints.

Energy industry officials say they are closely regulated and that much of the information about the chemicals they use is public by law. They also say some of the work they do is so far below the surface that it’s unlikely it could affect people, and they question why energy workers aren’t reporting the same problems.

Colborn, a senior fellow at the World Wildlife Fund, has studied the effects of man-made chemicals on the development of humans and wildlife. She co-wrote the 1996 book “Our Stolen Future: How We are Threatening our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival.”

Now, she’s focused on the oil and gas industry. Colborn said using industry Material Safety Data Sheets, kept at work sites, and information from industry insiders, she and her fellow researchers have identified nearly 220 chemicals used in energy development, some of which she said are known to cause respiratory and neurological problems and gastrointestinal and liver damage.

“It says on the (Material Safety Data Sheets) you should wear a respirator and goggles” around the chemicals, Colborn said. “And people are living near these sites.”

Colborn believes the numerous wastewater pits dotting the rolling hills in Garfield County, heart of northwestern Colorado’s energy boom, are a health hazard. But she acknowledges proving that could be difficult.

One of the problems is that many of the chemicals haven’t been thoroughly tested and no health standards have been established for them, Colborn said.

“And they’ve not been looked at for long-term health effects,” she added.

Which is exactly my point. They say the toxins aren’t considered hazardous. But they haven’t even tested the chemicals or established health standards. So how the hell do they know they’re not dangerous?

They don’t.

Colborn said another challenge is that companies frequently won’t reveal their recipe for hydraulic fracturing, which injects water, sand and chemicals underground to break down barriers and help release oil or gas for extraction.

Federal laws give the public access to information about hazardous chemicals used by companies, said Ken Wonstolen, general counsel for the Colorado Oil and Gas Association trade group. He said the public can also lobby agencies for tougher rules.

Bruce Baizel, staff attorney for the Durango-based Oil and Gas Accountability Project, said his group has run into resistance in getting information about some chemicals. The disclosure requirements apply to larger volumes, which leaves out individual well sites, Baizel said.

The state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which has primary oversight of the industry in Colorado, doesn’t require companies to detail the materials they use, said its director, Brian Macke. But he said if the agency got a complaint about alleged contamination, it would insist on knowing what was in the fluids.

Colborn said she believes the warning signs are sufficient to make regulators more proactive. She said she believes chemicals used in drilling and processing likely caused a rare adrenal gland tumor in Laura Amos, who publicly accused Encana Oil & Gas (USA) of contaminating her water well near Silt.

“You can’t say that’s what did it, but it’s certainly raising red flags,” Colborn said.

The Oil and Gas Conservation Commission fined Encana $99,400 because gas was found in the well water. EnCana disputed the commission’s finding, but didn’t fight it. The company bought Amos’ property earlier this year for an undisclosed amount.

Encana spokesman Doug Hock said the company responds to complaints about well water and often finds that the real culprit is the poor quality of the wells and groundwater. He said Encana is confident that hydraulic fracturing, or “frac’ing” (fracking), isn’t contaminating wells.

“The reason is the depth at which we go and the fact that you have a huge amount of rock wall thousands of feet thick between where we’re doing the frac’ing and the aquifer where there would be water,” Hock said.

The contamination of local wells is not necessarily happening during the fracking process. The industry prides themselves in their process of collecting the wastewater from fracking and not letting it spill out onto the ground. Yet those huge collection pools of chemical soup sit around for months on end in the rain and snow, eventually seeping out into the ground water.

Do they think we don’t have eyes? We can see the pools. They’re everywhere. Some are nearly an acre in size. The pools are lined with some type of rubber or vinyl sheets – rather flimsy protection for the environment. It’s easy to see how chemicals could leach from the ponds into the groundwater and also form chemical clouds in the air.

Do they think we have no sense of smell? We can see the chemical separator smokestacks at the well pads. They don’t have any containment devices for the effluents. Our noses tell us what our eyes can’t see.   

It’s incredible with the case histories mounting, the irrefutable evidence of health effects, that the energy companies continue to deny and the state does nothing to safeguard clean air and water.

Incredible?

No.

It’s insane.

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

Ohmigod. What a week!

I can’t let this day go by without acknowledging – honoring – the passing of the last ranch in Silt. Kay Larson’s Ranch. The place has meant so much to me I’m not even sure I can get through this. But I have to get through it, in order to move on. So I’m thinking maybe if I write my way through this, it’ll all be okay.

But I’m warning you, this could get real personal – and blubbery.

Change is good. It’s just so damn hard.

The Ranch is 2 blocks from our house. We can see the pasture from our front porch. For 10 years, we have watched the parade of horses and a few donkeys pass through that pasture. Kay is a race horse breeder and horse/donkey rescuer combined. He sold the Ranch to the RE-2 School District a year ago. He and the horses moved to New Mexico last June. That was hard enough.

Groundbreaking for the new elementary school was last week I think. My neighbor Eva warned me today that there had been some big changes over there. So I’d better get on over and get it out of my system.

When I drove by, the two houses, the barn, the stable, the corrals, and the trees, were all gone. Something like a hundred years of ranching. Now a pile of earth.

Poof!

I lost it. Cried like a baby.

It’s just one of those places that’s hard to explain. An emotional attachment I guess. Since we moved here I have stopped by regularly to pet, feed, and talk to the horses. In 2000, after Apollo (our previous Malamute) died of cancer I had a tough time. I was kind of lost without him. So I started going over to Kay’s more. Being around the horses was healing for me. Even though I knew all the horses and a donkey he had at the time, I’d never met Kay. He came over to me one day while I was petting the donkey and told me I had “animal magnetism”.

“Oh really?” I asked. “How so?”

“This donkey here was abused,” he said. “He’s had a tough life. He doesn’t trust people and he doesn’t much like them. But he trusts you. Look how he lets you pet him.”

“He’s always let me pet him.”

“I know. I’ve seen it. The horses, too. They like it when you come and pay attention to them.”

“I hope you don’t mind.”

“Naw. Woulda said something if I did.”

He told me the donkey was going to a new home soon so I shouldn’t get too attached. I laughed and said I wasn’t attached. “I just like animals.”

Then he launched into a story about Beggar, the 20-something race horse he bought just to let him go to pasture rather than the glue factory, he said, “Cuz he was a winner all his life. Made a lotta money for a lotta people. He deserves a happy retirement.”

Beggar and I were already friends. It was nice to know his story. He’s a gigantic black stallion, the most dignified horse I have ever known. Like royalty almost. Uppity, yet affectionate.

Kay told me that he appreciated all the attention I paid to the donkey and his horses. That was all the encouragement I needed. I became a constant visitor.

About a year later Mia Jones and Orphan Annie arrived. Mia came first. She’d only been there a few months when Annie arrived as a 6-month old blind, abused, messed up filly. Kay said some people drove up with a trailer full of horses one day. They were looking to buy some hay for the trip. He never said where the horses were headed. I didn’t ask because I wasn’t sure I wanted to know the answer. He said he spotted a battered white colt and asked why she was in with those horses. They said she was blind and mean. He bought her off them and named her Orphan Annie.

“She’s worth saving,” he said. “What those folks didn’t know is she’s not really blind. She just hasn’t learned how to see.”

Helping Annie learn how to see became my new challenge. By then I had my granddaughter Hailey along to help. Kay smeared black stuff under her eyes to reduce glare, I used carrots, and Hailey talked to her, to help her learn how to focus. I’ll never know how much she learned to see. But I know she learned to see me and Hailey real good. She could spot us from across the pasture. Guess that’s all that matters.

Mia Jones became her BFF. Mia is just the opposite of Annie. A high-spirited, spoiled, blue-blooded race horse in-training. A gorgeous chestnut thoroughbred who lowered her head to no one. Mia is really the one who saved Annie. They shared the same stable and corral for 3 years.

Hailey and I were crazy about Mia and Annie and Beggar. The feelings were mutual. We visited regularly. Time with horses is hard to describe. They are such incredible creatures. Enormous. Yet gentle. Dangerous. Yet affectionate. They have powerful personalities. They loved to be talked to and touched.

As much as Mia and Annie and Beggar loved the carrots, it was never really ever about the carrots. Not for them. And not for me or Hailey. It was about the love and communication with those amazing animals. Each one such a character. And so beautiful.

When Mia left for racing school in California 2 years ago, Annie was lost without her. She lived though an angry winter. Kay put her in with Beggar. She got attacked by dogs that got in the pasture. It was rough. Hailey and I visited even more often to help her through. Tod even got in on her rehabilitation. By Spring she’d attached herself to Beggar finally and her disposition improved.

Mia left a hole in all our lives. But Kay told me the trainers said she was really well-socialized and responding best in her class to the trainers, though she did prefer one of the trainers in particular, a short blond woman – like me. I was never so proud. 

Through the years there were other mares and other colts, but in the end it was Mia and Beggar and Annie who bonded with us. I knew in January it was the beginning of the end. I prepared myself for the Spring. I told Hailey – and myself – that they were moving to a new ranch in New Mexico where they would be just as happy. But I knew our lives would never be the same. It wasn’t just losing Beggar and Annie, it was the Ranch itself.

The last ranch in Silt.

Sacred ground. 

Today it’s gone. There’s nothing left but memories. As cliché as that sounds, it is what it is. They are memories that Hailey and I share. And probably the best consolation for both of us is that in losing the Ranch, she gets a brand new school in return. Not a bad trade-off.

Just not an easy one.

I will help her remember the sacred ground she will learn and grow and play on.

A couple months ago, I noticed a magnificent young pinto in the horse pasture between the freeway and the railroad tracks. Someone feeds and waters him, but he’s all alone. I’ve been watching him. He’s striking. Chocolate brown and black and white, with a white stripe like a perfect lightening bolt across his backside. He is one handsome dude. But he’s restless and lonely. I could tell.

So today I took Hailey down to the pasture to see him. The pasture is huge and he was out in the middle. With all the freeway noise it was hard to get his attention. After about 10 minutes we were ready to give up when he looked up and saw us. He reared up and broke into full gallop toward the fence.

Wow.

I sure hoped he was friendly. He was. Or I should say, he is friendly. He was so happy for our company he didn’t even want any carrots. He just wanted us to talk to him and touch him. So we did. For a long time. He ate it all up. He’s sweet and gentle and affectionate – and oh, so lonely. We don’t know his name so we called him Tonto. He’s amazing.

Hailey and I made a new friend today.

Don’t worry. I won’t get attached.

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

Going into last night’s Board Meeting I had said I was hoping for an angry mob. But I should’ve known better. The River Park Peeps don’t do angry mob. We are a compassionate bunch. A peaceful mob. We all love our dogs. We all love River Park. Last night we embraced those bonds.

We filled the Board chambers in the Town Hall. About 20-25 people showed up. Maybe more? I’m not sure. Some people I knew. Some people I’ve never seen before. Some I had not contacted but they had heard about it and came anyway. Others I know only by their dogs’ names. Ten people spoke, I think. Anyway we filled up the 30 minutes allowed.

I spoke first:

I think it’s important to point out what has brought us all here tonight. One person – Claudia Plattner – complained to Mayor Moore about the dogs at River Park on November 19. Mayor Moore then ignored Town Statutes for Public Comments and allowed her 20 minutes to lodge her complaints at the November 27 Board Meeting.

One day. One person’s complaints.

No police report. No investigation. No facts or witnesses were presented at the meeting. Only allegations against Tod and my 2 dogs, and other dog owners in general.

The truth is, the ONLY thing that happened on November 19, was Tonya Walker and her fiancé were shooting paintball guns in the park and Tod and I asked them to stop. We did not ask them to leave the park, mind you. We asked them to stop shooting their paintball guns. Because it is illegal.

The circumstances on November 19, were brought about by people. Not dogs. There were no dog fights. No one was injured. No one was harassed.

Other allegations have been tossed around about “roaming and unattended dogs” at River Park. That is just ridiculous. Tod and I spend at least a half hour there nearly every day. We walk 3 times around the park and have never once encountered “roaming or unattended dogs.”

On November 27, Claudia Plattner said that she is afraid to take the Girl Scouts to River Park because of all the dogs. But that is absurd. We have been taking our 5-year old granddaughter, Hailey to the park since she was born. Now, we often see Jerry and Becky Kidd’s 1-year old granddaughter, Victoria there with their dog Yogi. No harm has ever come to these children at River Park.

Yet Claudia – who has admitted she is afraid of big dogs – wants the Town to fence in part of River Park to keep everyone else’s dogs away from her dogs. Some Board Members are even considering her demand.

So consider this analogy:

If I go to Flying Eagle Park on any given Saturday afternoon, I could run smack into a bunch of kids playing soccer. Maybe I was hit in the head by a soccer ball in a previous life. Or maybe I just don’t like kids.
After all, 5 years ago I could walk through Flying Eagle Park without being assaulted by kids and soccer balls. 

If I follow the Mayor’s logic thus far, then I would have the right to demand that the kids be fenced off in a separate area or driven from Flying Eagle Park entirely, so everyone can enjoy the park all the time. After all, why should Silt provide a park just for kids to play soccer?

But wait a second. We already DO provide TWO parks for kids to play soccer. And the kids aren’t even leashed or fenced in.

River Park is the only park in Silt where dog owners can exercise or train their dogs off leash. Putting the dogs in a fenced area would defeat their whole purpose. Also, Silt’s Master Plan designates River Park as an undeveloped park. A fence doesn’t fit into that plan. River Park should remain as it is now, a park that everyone can enjoy – including the dogs.

Thank you.

Tod spoke next:

I am a citizen of Silt first and Trustee second. Because of statements made at Public Comments on November 27, about me both directly and indirectly, I am seeking clarification from the Mayor.

At the opening of Public Comments, Mayor Moore made a statement that deserves response in the same public forum. He stated [quote]: “Nobody has the authority to tell another person how to behave in a Town Park. If rules are broken, then the standard operating procedure is to call the Police.” [end quote]

I am at odds with the Mayor on that statement.

When I became a Trustee, I swore an oath to uphold the law and protect the health and safety of the citizens of Silt. At River Park on November 19, I observed two people with weapons in a Town Park. I let them know it was a park and they acknowledged they knew it was. Then I asked them not to discharge their weapons in the park. The Mayor and I have taken the same oath. Asking someone not to discharge a weapon around people and pets in a public park is not only my sworn duty; it’s just common sense.

What bothers me most about the Public Comments of the last Board Meeting is that I was accused by both Ms. Plattner and the Mayor. They both knew my actions on November 19 would be part of the discussion prior to the Board Meeting but did not notify me. Citizens have a right to be notified when accusations are going to be aired against them in a public meeting. If any actions are taken as a result of the complaint lodged by Ms. Plattner, I insist the Mayor and the Board take the time to review the facts surrounding the issues raised by Public Comments on November 27. This is essential in order to gain a proper perspective of this issue.

Every individual has the right to due process and every issue deserves the same.

Here’s a shout out to my new readers! I assume there are a few more after last night’s meeting since I passed out cards with my blog address printed on them. Several people mentioned that they didn’t know what was going on with River Park. So I pointed them here. Apparently there was a rumor going around that the park might be closed.

Hey! Don’t look at me! I didn’t start that rumor.

Whatever.

A great big THANK YOU to all who came and to all who spoke! Becky Kidd, Ann Ramsey, the McClellans, the Brogans, Susan, Kim, and everyone else whose names I didn’t get but I will eventually.

It’s so emotional when people talk about their dogs. Kim, who is a very quiet person, spoke about what a sanctuary the park is for her and her 2 dogs. Ann Ramsey talked about Honey, who is a frail 16-year old cocker spaniel, and how she manages quite well with the other dogs. Becky talked about Yogi, the social butterfly, who is getting older and needs his friends at River Park. Susan talked about Blissie who died last July. Now she and Bill have adopted a new dog that Bill (who is a Basalt Firefighter) picked up off the road on a call after he’d been hit by a car. The dog lost his front leg and he will need River Park to rehabilitate.

It made me cry thinking about all the dogs who have passed through River Park over the years—including our own beloved Apollo. (We lost him to cancer in 2000.) And just how much that gorgeous island means to all of us and our dogs. It is truly beyond words. And I realized that we are not the problem. We go to River Park because we’re responsible dog owners. We love our dogs so much we want be with them at Dogland and see them running or swimming, or playing with other dogs. To share that joy. Cuz life is too short and our time with them is even shorter. We just want THEM to be happy. WE just want to be happy.

Okay, so, as things stand today, there was no more discussion on the topic last night. River Park is on the Agenda for the January 8 Board Meeting. The issue of annexation has to be addressed first. If the Board Members make any other decisions beyond annexation, Tod plans to push for public hearings, and depending on what the Board decides, even putting it on a ballot for the people to ultimately approve or disapprove any plan.

People are STILL ENCOURAGED to send LETTERS to the Board of Trustees, Town of Silt, CO 81652. So if you have not sent a letter, it’s a good idea to do that now. It keeps the issue open and fresh. River Park will likely be on the Agenda through the winter. It’s possible that nothing BUT annexation will be dealt with before Spring. I will continue to provide updates here, as they happen. Don’t hesitate to call or email me with your questions or concerns. I also respond to blog comments so there’s that, too.

The Board Meeting didn’t end till almost 11:30 pm. I waited up for Tod. He had to get up at 4:00 am to catch a 6:30 flight to Chicago. So he’s there. I’m here. And we’re both kinda tired today.

The issue of dogs at River Park is far from resolved. For now we are free to walk our dogs unleashed. I feel good about the impact of last night’s Public Comments. I am GOBSMACKED by the generosity and dedication of the River Park Peeps.

Thank you ALL again and again!

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

Now that I have bored everyone to death by relating the events surrounding the River Park fiasco as they have unfolded, it’s time to pause for a deep breath.

A-ah-hh! Doesn’t that feel better?

Now for some background information.

As I said at the end of my last post, after watching the video of the first hour of the Board Meeting, it was clear to us that the Mayor had hi-jacked the meeting to pick a dog fight with Tod. And in my 11/30 letter to the Board I questioned the Mayor’s motivations and judgment.

Why?

The simple answer is that the Mayor has a vendetta against Tod. But it’s more complicated than that.

Of course.

The Mayor has a vendetta against Stillwater (see Deadwater). I’m not in favor of Stillwater either. But I don’t have a vendetta against the developers. I thought they deserved to be chewed out by the Mayor last August. Beyond that I don’t have a dog in that fight. Heh.

Tod is neutral on Stillwater. He says, “They have a right to go through the application process just like anyone else. Board Members’ personal feelings should not enter into the process. The Stillwater representatives deserve a fair hearing.”

Before Dave Moore was elected Mayor last April—in a 3-way race by 22 votes (see I Voted Early)—he was Trustee Moore. During a Board Meeting discussion on Stillwater last March, he publicly chastised Tod for showing “favoritism” to their representatives and insinuated that Tod had something to gain from it. Tod had argued that he was not showing favoritism but fairness and assurance of a democratic process.

Since Hizzonor’s August tirade, he has done his darnedest to stall the discussions and delay issues so that Stillwater’s review process doesn’t move forward.

As we see it, River Park is a non-issue. The police have one complaint on file over the past 4 years (dog biting dog). Board Members have produced no documentations of complaints received. There’s just Claudia Plattner whining at the last Board Meeting. Her charges were trumped up by Hizzonor to create a new Agenda item, moving Stillwater further back on the Agenda and further behind in the process. Dredging up River Park also pushes back issues like air quality monitoring of gas well emissions, water quality issues, other developments’ approvals, road maintenance, etc.

The list goes on and on.

It’s sort of like Congress. They’ve spent the past 6 years beating their drums over hot-button-emotional-issue after hot-button-emotional-issue, so that nothing important gets done.

This is the same Mayor who presided over the name change kerfuffle last Spring. Remember? Who wants to live in a town named after dirt?

On top of his violation of Town Statutes for Public Comments at the November 27 Board Meeting, for the past 2 weeks Hizzonor has been sending out emails to Board Members about issues relating to Stillwater and River Park, which violates the Colorado Open Meetings Law—The Sunshine Law. 

The reason I am posting all of this on my blog is because Tod consulted with several attorneys who told him this is not a legal issue; (lawyers use lots of semi-colons) it is a political issue. Whereas we have to fight this in the court of public opinion; heretofore I have recorded the events as they have unfolded, in this public forum; therefore anyone who wants to know the details can read all about them here.

December 4

At our request, we met with Town Manager Rick Aluise, Secretary Sheila McIntyre, Attorney Pamela Barber, and Police Chief Taylor. We thanked Chief Taylor for his memo and presented our version of the events of November 19, at River Park.

“I don’t know why Tonya Walker and Claudia Plattner are lying about us and our dogs,” I said. “It’s like we’re trapped on the Fox News Channel.”

I also presented them with another letter, which Board Members received on December 8:

Dear Board of Trustees,

I have now had the opportunity to hear and see Claudia Plattner’s comments at the November 27 Board Meeting.

At the beginning of the meeting, Mayor Moore chastised the Board of Trustees that they should not inform others about the law but should call the Police Department. Yet he did not follow his own prescribed rules and advise Claudia Plattner to file a complaint with the Police Department.

I have no idea what Claudia’s motives were—perhaps they were based on her fear of big dogs due to past trauma—but her interpretation of her so-called encounter  with our dogs on November 19 at River Park is not at all mine or Tod’s recollection.

First of all, we don’t own “huskies”. Perhaps she is talking about someone else’s dogs. If you remember, in Tonya Walker’s November 24 Letter to the Editor, she and her fiancé apparently had an altercation with Claudia as well. Our dogs are an Alaskan Malemute and a Lab/Great Pyrenees mix.

When we visited River Park on November 19, our dogs were constantly in visual site and under voice control. As we approached a group of people with small dogs on leashes our dogs greeted their dogs and we walked on. In no way did our dogs charge the small dogs. They did not bark or growl or act aggressively toward her dogs. We can only assume that was Claudia’s group that day because she said she was there with small dogs on leashes. No one in the group spoke to us, nor did they complain or indicate in any way that our dogs had frightened them or their dogs. Their dogs did not bark or growl or act defensive in any way that would indicate fear.

So therefore, if Claudia was indeed frightened by our dogs or felt that our dogs were being a nuisance, then it seems logical that she would have said something to us at the time. Or at the very least, she would have called us afterward to voice her concerns about our dogs. Evidently she knew it was Tod and I. But she did neither. This, along with the fact that she did not file a complaint with the Police Department, should call into question the veracity of her version of the situation.

Instead she called Mayor Moore. And Mayor Moore did not even see fit to notify us of her complaints, or to glean our version of ANY of the events of November 19 at River Park. Instead Mayor Moore tossed out protocol and allowed Claudia to speak to the Board and level false accusations at Tod and I for having nuisance dogs at River Park. Neither Tod or I was told about these accusations before the meeting. Instead the accusations were used to hi-jack him at the meeting. And he and I were given absolutely no opportunity to present our version of the events.

Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence? Does it not apply to Board protocol? I think it does. Are Tod and I guilty because Claudia Plattner says so? I think not.

The circumstances of the November 27 Board Meeting; the introduction of Tonya Walker’s Letter to the Editor and Claudia’s statements aired at this public meeting without our knowledge or consent is breathlessly appalling. I am completely outraged.

I am willing to swear under oath that my dogs did not charge Claudia Plattner or her dogs and were not a nuisance at River Park on November 19.

Before the Board of Trustees reviews the status of dogs at River Park, know this: the entire discussion at the November 27 Board Meeting was based on false accusations from Claudia Plattner against a Town Official without the Board following due process for employee complaints. And Mayor Moore ordered and sanctioned that lack of due process. Mayor Moore also knowingly violated Town Statutes for public comments. 

Sincerely,
Peggy Tibbetts

Meanwhile, for the past two weeks, Tod and I have posted signs and passed out flyers asking people to please come to the Board Meeting on December 11, to help keep River Park a leash-optional dog park. We walk the dogs there every day so we’ve also been yakking our fool heads off to anyone who will listen. We can be real pests that way. But the response has been so overwhelmingly positive we just can’t stop ourselves.

We met up with Jessica Kidd with her 1-year old niece, Victoria in the stroller, walking Yogi. She said: “I can’t believe anyone would attack you guys or your dogs. People here look up to you guys. You’ve been here forever. Your dogs are so well-trained and you’re so nice to everyone. We all love Zeus and Venus!”

December 5

I sent another letter to the Board, which they also received on December 8:

RE: River Park

Dear Board of Trustees,

Local residents, including Tod and I, have been using River Park to walk our dogs off leash for decades. Through the years the park has been used by dog walkers, casual hikers, bicyclists, birdwatchers, rafters, fisherman, and others who have managed to respect and enjoy its natural state with very few problems. River Park was established through the Silt Master Plan and past Town Board discussions as a local park that should remain undeveloped. During public comments at the Town Board Meeting on May 9, 2005, several park users and residents spoke out on behalf of keeping River Park an undeveloped, multi-use park. I had gathered 42 signatures in favor of keeping River Park as it is, in its undeveloped state, as designated in the Silt Master Plan, and I presented those signatures to the Board at the meeting.

As the Board addresses the matter of annexation of River Park and considers its many uses, I urge you to keep in mind that River Park belongs to the people of Silt. Therefore the majority of the people—not one person and not the Town Board—should decide the future of River Park.

In spite of Claudia Plattner’s November 27 comments, I can assure you there is no reason the Girl Scouts should stay away from River Park. Tod and I take our 5-year old granddaughter to the Park several times a week. Other children, from infants to teens, use the park regularly without incident.

Up to this point, the Board has not followed proper procedure in dealing with the issues surrounding River Park. I have asked for and obtained copies of Board Members email correspondences regarding the discussion about River Park at the November 27 Board Meeting and will make them available to anyone who is interested in the issues.

From now on, I trust the Board Members will follow proper procedures—including public hearings—as the matter of River Park moves forward.

Thank you.
Peggy Tibbetts

December 7

Board Members voted by phone poll to move the River Park issue to the January 8 Meeting Agenda, thus allowing for Public Comments on the issue at the December 11 Board Meeting.

Consulting Attorney (Town of Silt) Cindy Tester sent out emails cautioning the Mayor and Board Members that emails can be considered meetings. She provided case histories to back that up. Apparently her point went right over Hizzonor’s head:

THAT WAS BEAUTIFUL.  ABSOLUTLY BEAUTIFUL.  ONCE AGAIN COMMON SENSE PREVAILS. I feel vindicated. I only hope that all the Trustees and Staff reads this e-mail.  How cute was the last statement “and led me not into temptation, but deliver me from e-mail.”  The subject is over as far as I am concerned. Whew.
Dave

December 8

According to Rick, the Mayor and Town Hall have received “too many phone calls to count” and several letters ALL in favor of keeping River Park a leash free dog park.

We have successfully rallied the troops for a dog fight.

But the whole annexation issue is still out there. Until that is resolved, River Park will be on the Agenda for quite some times. We don’t have a crystal ball. We don’t know where this is all going to lead. 

By golly, it’s almost Rumsfeldian:

“There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.”

There is one thing we know for certain. On December 11, this whole mess is going to blow up in Hizzonor’s face.

Stay tuned …

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

December 1

We have satellite TV, so we don’t get the Silt Channel. Sheila McIntyre (Town Secretary) gave Tod a copy of the videotape of Monday’s Board Meeting, which he had requested.

Rick sent out two emails to Board Members. The first one was about River Park and the annexation issue:

To all:

I believe the River Park has not been annexed, but in order to be certain, I will go back through the annexation ordinances.  The River Park could not have been annexed prior to the annexation of Stillwater because we would not have had statutory contiguity.  The park has only been contiguous since the annexation of Stillwater.  I will check all annexation ordinances since Stillwater to be certain. 

I also clearly recall the previous Board discussion regarding the use of this park as a “leash-free” or “rest area” park.  As a point of clarification, all motions and directives in the minutes are verbatim.  The motion is printed in the minutes with the exact language used by the one making the motion.  This is required by law.  If it is not in the motion written in the minutes, it was not part of the motion.  Any random discussion that may have occurred is absolutely meaningless if it did not make its way to a formal action.  All formal actions are verbatim, and general discussion or ideas are not actions, and they mean nothing.  This is why you frequently hear me ask for a motion or a consensus. When you provide one, it will be in the minutes exactly as stated, as required by law.

I am continuing to review the minutes of past Board meetings to locate any action that the Board might have taken, and I will provide it to you as soon as possible.

Rick

The second one was about procedures at Board Meetings:

To all:

Since the park issue will now be an agenda topic, it’s a little late to review the municipal code requirements for public comments.  However, since the park issue last Monday strayed from the usual public comment format, I thought I would provide you with the code provisions that address this matter:

2.28.020 Meetings to be public.

 A. Board meetings where formal action can occur and work sessions are open to the public.

 B. At regular board meetings, time shall be designated on the agenda for public comment so interested individuals or spokespersons for various organizations may present their views directly to the board. At the board’s discretion, time for public comment may be designated on a special or emergency meeting agenda.

 C. The following shall be the required procedures for public comment at any board meeting:

 1. All individuals or spokespersons desiring to address the board must register on the “sign-in” sheet provided by the town clerk prior to the announcement of the public comment agenda item. Each individual must print his or her name, address, and reason for addressing the board.

 2. Public comment to the board on non-agenda items shall be scheduled at the beginning of each regular board meeting and shall be limited to a total period for all comments not to exceed thirty minutes and a total time for any one individual’s comments not to exceed three minutes. The presiding officer will call forward each individual listed on the “sign-in” sheet for non-agenda items.

 3. The presiding officer will recognize each individual desiring to address the board on any agenda item when such item is before the board for discussion. The individual providing comment shall have no more than five minutes to address the board.

 4. All individuals shall observe proper decorum and avoid the use of abusive or profane language in the meeting room whether or not addressing the board. In the event abusive or profane language is used or an individual otherwise disrupts any board meeting, such individual may be removed from the meeting room, at the board’s discretion, by a peace officer.

 5. The time limits or procedures in this section may be suspended or amended by majority vote of the members present. (Ord. 24-00)
 
Several items are important to keep in mind with regard to this code:

* The citizen must first sign the sheet.

* Anyone addressing the Board has 3 minutes to speak and a total of 5 minutes in front of the Board.  These 5 minutes allow for their 3 minutes and any interaction with the citizen that the Board would like.  Again, their total time allowed in front of the Board is 5 minutes total, with 3 minutes comment time.

* Their comments are only for non-agenda items.

* Proper decorum must be observed.  Anyone who does not observe proper decorum may be removed.

* The time limits and procedures may only be changed by a majority vote of the Board before the comment section. Therefore, no one can change these time limits and procedures without majority Board approval.

While this particular item will not be up for public comment at the next meeting, I thought it would be wise to review for future meetings.  Even though it will not be a public comment topic, the Board has every right to set time limits on any issue before them. Our code spells out the limits for public comment, and it can only be changed by a majority vote of the Board.  Robert’s Rules of Order clearly spell out the parameters and even the time limits for a debate on a regular agenda topic.  It also states that the rules may be changed by a two thirds vote of the Board.  The rules note that two thirds is “. . . required as a compromise between the right of the individual to be heard and the right of the group not to be unduly delayed in conducting its business” (quote is from Robert’s Rules of Order revised). 

I hope this helps rather than causes more confusion.

Rick

Along with my letter (in which I addressed Tonya Walker’s Letter to the Editor—posted yesterday), Board Members also received this memo from Chief Taylor:

As you can well imagine I have been flooded with questions and ideas regarding the issue of dogs in the Silt River Park. In ordinance 19 series 2002 a new dog ordinance was revised and passed by the board of trustees. During the public hearing on the ordinance several members of our community expressed concerns that there would be no place for them to play with their dogs, train their dogs, play Frisbee, or throw balls for the dogs. After a lengthy discussion on this topic, it was decided by the Board to allow dogs to run Off leashes and to play in the Silt River Park. This area was also designated by the Board as a rest area. As I recall this was all part of the motion to approve the ordinance. Therefore the Police Department has allowed dogs to run and play in the river park.

This area is utilized by numerous people every day. Since the inception of this ordinance we have had only one incident involving dogs, and that was a fight between 2 dogs. We also had an alleged incident of a horse being aggravated by dogs.

If I may throw my 2 cents worth into this issue, it makes much more sense to have the dog area at River Park rather than trying to move it to another area which may be closer to the public and create a situation where dog problems become the order of the day. It is my observation that the current situation allows for all uses of the park. You see people fishing, hiking, picnicking, playing with their dogs, and co mingling all of the time. If the citizens don’t want to be around the dogs, there are many other parks in town for them to visit.

WOW!

He really nailed it! Tod and I were amazed and heartened by this. We didn’t ask for this memo from Chief Taylor or solicit his support for dogs at River Park in any way. Although a couple people have told us that they know of police officers recommending to dog owners with problem dogs that they take them down to River Park to learn to socialize with other dogs and run off some steam.

It never hurts to have the law on our side.

December 2

Tod and I watched the first hour of the videotape of Monday’s Board Meeting on Saturday night. Until then I only knew what Tod had related to me about the meeting. And Tod had been so gobsmacked by the whole thing he needed to review what had happened. When we stopped the video, I was so pissed off I was shaking. Tod was none too happy either.

The Mayor had hi-jacked the meeting to smack Tod with trumped up charges about the events at River Park on November 19.

We got us a dog fight on our hands.

Coming up next — It’s Like We’re Trapped On The Fox News Channel

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

November 28

Tod called Rick Aluise (Town Manager) and told him that Claudia’s interpretation of the events of November 19 were quite different from ours. He said we will keep walking our dogs off leash at River Park and since Board Members cannot knowingly violate Silt ordinances, if he needed to resign from the Board, then so be it.

Rick asked him not to resign. He said he would continue to research the ordinance. Tod said he would call past Board Members and ask for their recollections.

Tod asked Rick about the mysterious Letter to the Editor that Mayor Moore and Trustee Morgan had referred to and Rick told him how to find it at The Paper’s website.

That night we found the letter. It was published on November 24, but we had not read it and no one had told us about it before Monday’s meeting. It’s from the woman who was shooting paintball guns in the park. Except she didn’t bother to mention that little detail. Tod and I are implicated in the second paragraph. The first paragraph is about their altercation with the small dogs people. Because she lied about her encounter with Tod and I, the truthiness of her encounter with the small dogs people is also suspect.

Don’t be rude at the dog park

Dear Editor,

This letter is in reference to a couple of incidents that occurred in the water/dog park located on the south side of silt on Sunday, Nov. 19.

First, to the women leaving the park that afternoon with their three dogs, two of which were being carried, I do not appreciate the fact that when my dogs approached you, you kicked and stomped at them. In case you did not notice, when one of your dogs approached my fiancé and jumped up on him, he did not in return kick or stomp at your dog. The park does not require leashed dogs, so be prepared in the future for other dogs to approach you and your pets. Our dogs did not come up to you growling or being aggressive, so please do not think it necessary to kick at them.

Secondly, to the woman and her husband, representatives for their town of Silt, if you are going to call other patrons of that park names because they may not follow your so-called rules, make sure you check with your local police department or even the mayor in regards to the true and accurate rules and regulations for that park. You might find that what you told us was not accurate, therefore the beautiful afternoon we had planned on spending with our pets was ruined because your rudeness and inappropriate behavior. Next time keep it friendly. Your telling us what we were doing was wrong only made us more determined to prove you wrong. You and your husband do not own that park, therefore you, too, must abide by the rules and regulations. I found that your behavior was extremely inappropriate, and had you been a little more aware of the situation, you could have seen that we were leaving because we did not want to make your time with your pets less enjoyable. However, you ruined our afternoon.

Thank you for letting me call the Silt Police Department, because now I know the true rules and regulations. Do you?

Tonya Walker
Silt

What a lying sack of crap!

We couldn’t figure out why The Paper would even print such bizarre ramblings. Unless—what if in the version she first submitted she used our names? Maybe The Paper was just trying to stir up trouble in Silt. Ja think? I submitted a brief rebuttal but The Paper hasn’t printed it. I doubt they will. They don’t bother with facts. They’re in the truthiness business.

So here it is:

In reference to the incidents at Silt’s River Park on November 19, alleged in Tonya Walker’s letter (November 24), I was there and would like to set the record straight. Ms. Walker left out one important detail. She and her fiancé were in the park shooting paintball guns. My husband and I asked them not to shoot their guns and when they did we informed them that shooting guns in a city park is illegal. We did not call them names and we were not rude. In fact we asked them to put away their guns and bring their dogs back in the park. One more time, just to be clear, it is illegal to shoot any guns in Silt’s River Park. That’s the law. Ms. Walker is misinformed and she is lying.

November 29

Tod stopped by the Town Hall and told Rick our side of Tonya Walker’s tall tale. That the couple was shooting paintball guns and the Mayor was at River Park on November 19, was breaking news to him. So it was Rick’s turn to be gobsmacked.

Tod also talked to Police Chief Taylor about Ms. Walker’s letter and asked if she had actually called the Police Department. Chief Taylor said one of his officers had given the couple permission to shoot their paintball guns in the park in error and the officer had been reprimanded.

November 30

I should point out that Board Meetings are televised live on Silt’s Cable Access Channel, then the videotape is replayed over and over till the next Board Meeting. So people could see and hear about the matter for themselves, and were beginning to talk about it. Tod and I talked to fellow Doglanders at the park and on the phone. Everyone we talked to was pissed off and wants the Board to leave the park alone. None of us has anywhere else to walk our dogs. 

Hizzonor sent out this email:

Honorable Trustees, and Darn Hard Working Staff,

We have an issue to be dealt with. I am getting phone calls both at home and at City Hall about the doggie park issue. Both arguments are flooding the telephone lines and I am recommending that they write letters to the BOT and come to the public meeting.

Regardless of my personal views of the doggie parks, I think it’s going to boil down to “what does the law say”. What I really want doesn’t matter, but what does matter is what’s in the best interest of the whole town, and not just those who agree or disagree with me. If they are calling me, then I expect that they will be calling you also which brings me to this point. If my callers all show up Monday night Dec 11, 2006 our hands will be full, the question is, how do we deal with this touchy subject, and how much time are we going to set aside for public interaction?

HERES MY TAKE:

First and foremost, all citizens will and should be heard.
Second from the fundamental aspects: “the law governs”.
Thirdly there should be compromise from both camps, or the law will reign?
I will insist on an orderly discussion, and format, and if it starts to get out of hand, I will discontinue the discussion, and either:
Continue it at a later date
Or just let the law rule without any compromise, which would come from a BOT decision.

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT BEFORE THE BOARD MEETING:

Do we change the doggie park into a fenced area?
Do we let it remain and change the ordinance to read that this park is a “rest area” and lease law is not in effect?
Do we chain off parts of the park?
Do we charge doggie impact fees to all developers in order to create a new “lease free” park?
Do we do nothing?
Do we insist that Still Water provide a lease free doggie park district?

All the above plus many more ideas will and should be discussed on Monday night Dec 11th.  We should come fully informed of the people’s wishes, the law, and the options. We should never make a decision without fully researching and investigating every issue, and this one is no exception.  I encourage each of you to share with staff and or each other.

There will be some contention, and that’s normal.  Emotions will be prevalent, and that too is normal.  I will not rebuke because of emotions.  It’s when the emotions start to get out of hand that I will attempt to bring it back into control. 

I have called Chief Taylor and asked him to be there.  He has consented.

I am not trying to stifle, strangle, or repress public comment. This is their right and their opportunity. We the BOT and Staff can off set some of the disruption by being fully informed (short of having decided on any issue).  Decisions should be finalized at City Hall.

I welcome your input and ideas.

Mayor Dave

Meanwhile Tod stopped by the Town Hall and dropped off copies of this letter I wrote to the Board Members, with copies of Tonya Walker’s Letter to the Editor attached, which they received on Friday (12/1):

Dear Board of Trustees,

It is extremely disturbing to learn that the attached November 24 Letter to the Editor submitted by Tonya Walker was brought up at the Silt Town Board Meeting on November 27, without Mayor Moore bothering to discover the facts of the incident.

Ms. Walker left out a very important detail and so did Mayor Moore when he spoke about the letter. She and her fiancé were shooting paintball guns in the park.

Tod and I are the “representatives” Ms. Walker referred to in the second paragraph of her letter. When we encountered her and her fiancé in the park with two dogs and two guns we warned them not to shoot their guns and when they did shoot their guns we informed them that shooting guns in a city park is illegal. In response, Ms. Walker and her fiancé screamed profanities at us and called us names. They were remarkably upset. Tod and I were not rude or unfriendly. In fact we suggested they put away their guns and bring their dogs back in the park. According to Chief Taylor, paintball guns are considered the same as pellet guns and it is illegal to discharge them on city property. On November 19, Tod and I knew the law and we informed Ms. Walker and her fiancé about the law. Ms. Walker is misinformed and she is lying.

 I must also point out that the incident has absolutely nothing to do with dogs or he behavior of any dogs that day at the park. It’s about people breaking the law and behaving badly.

What I find even more disturbing is that Mayor Moore was also at the park that day, which he neglected to mention. In her letter, Ms. Walker states: “make sure you check with your local police department or even the mayor in regards to the true and accurate rules and regulations for that park. You might find that what you told us was not accurate …” Did Mayor Moore tell Ms. Walker and her fiancé that it was okay to shoot paintball guns in the park?

I deeply resent Mayor Moore publicly questioning, in a Town Meeting setting, mine or Tod’s behavior in the November 19 incident without first discerning the facts. Furthermore, I question his motivation and his judgment in this situation.

Sincerely,
Peggy Tibbetts

Rick told Tod about another bombshell about to land in Hizzonor’s lap. Rick had researched the minutes and videotapes of the meetings when the Board discussed allowing dogs off leash at River Park, and he still couldn’t find the specific motion. But it was a moot point. He couldn’t find any record of River Park being annexed into the town. Therefore even though the land is owned by Silt, town ordinances don’t apply. River Park is still under Garfield County jurisdiction.

Tod called the county and found out there’s no leash requirement. So we’re still legal. And the dogs won’t be going to the slammer, just yet anyway.

After Rick talked to him about the annexation issue, Hizzonor sent out this email:

Honorable Trustees, I just discovered that the doggie park is not annexed into the town and is not subject to the leash law. I see storm clouds in the sky, and problems. Yes it is owned by the “Town Trustees”, but not annexed to farther complicate the issue. Well fasten your seat belt because it going to be a rough ride. Please be appraised and informed before the meeting.  Mayor Dave

SNAP!

That sound you hear is Hizzonor’s Crazy Bus crashing into the ditch.

Coming up next: Dog Fight

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.

AskOxford.com defines gobsmacked (adjective, Brit. Informal): utterly astonished.

At the November 27 Town Board Meeting, Mayor Moore opened the meeting by reading a prepared statement in which he said he had decided to stray from the published Agenda and deal with some issues that had come up regarding the use of River Park as a dog park. He didn’t make a motion or call for a motion to change the Agenda. He just did it.

Tod, as Mayor Pro-Tem, was present but he had no clue what the Mayor was up to.
 
The Mayor and Trustee Ron Morgan brought up a Letter to the Editor in The Paper that allegedly complained about problems with dogs at River Park on November 19. However the letter was not read aloud and no copies were presented. Both men only alluded to a letter and said they had received other complaints about dogs at River Park. Though neither of them offered any details about those alleged complaints—no names, no dates, no police reports. Nada. Just straw men.

The Mayor then chastised the Board Members in general about informing people about the law. He said if anyone encounters someone who is breaking the law the proper procedure is to call the Police Department—which he pulled straight out of his butt.

Flying by the seat of his own personal agenda, the Mayor read from an ordinance about River Park which made no provision for the park as a leash free dog park. Then he read from another ordinance which prohibits dogs in all Silt Parks. However Rick Aluise, the Town Manager, and Tod said they distinctly remembered the Board discussion and vote designating River Park as a “rest area” therefore dogs could be off leash. They both thought the park had been designated a no-leash park in 2002. Yet that language was not in the ordinance. Rick then said he would research the matter.

Next in line in Hizzonor’s Agenda Parade, he introduced Claudia Plattner for a public comments session. The Town Statutes provide 3 minutes for each speaker. The Mayor turned the microphone over to Claudia and she spoke for nearly a half hour. She said she was at River Park with 3 small dogs on leashes on November 19. She complained that other dogs not on leashes had harassed her dogs and frightened her. She looked straight at Tod and told the Board his “huskies” had charged her dogs and were a nuisance in the park that day. She claimed that she’s afraid of big dogs because a big dog killed her dog last Spring, even though that didn’t happen at River Park. She said she doesn’t think dogs should be allowed off leash at River Park because the owners are not responsible and the dogs are out of control. She said she can’t take the Girl Scouts down to the park because of all the dogs. She also said the park with filthy, and she whined on and on.

Throughout his Crazy Bus detour, not once did the Mayor mention that he was also at River Park on the day in question.

Tod sat there stunned. Gobsmacked.

“WTF?” he thought.

Board discussion followed:

“How awful that Claudia went through this.”

“We should close the park to dogs.”

“I don’t use the park anyway, but I don’t like to go down there with all the dogs running around so we should ban dogs.”

“Who is going to enforce a leash law at River Park? The Police Department has higher priorities.”

“I don’t have a dog so it doesn’t matter to me.

“What is the town’s liability?”

“We should close the park to dogs and build a fenced area for people to exercise their dogs.”

Blah. Blah. Blah.

When it was Tod’s turn he said that since this was the first he’d heard of his dogs causing any problems on November 19, he didn’t wish to comment on the incidents. He reiterated that the Board had indeed voted on and passed an ordinance that allowed for dogs off leash at River Park, and that the Police Department had supported the ruling.

Rick said he would research the discussions and motion and find out why it wasn’t in the ordinance.

The Mayor then said the issue of dogs at River Park should be put on the Agenda for December 11, and did so by consensus.
 
Knowing full well that Tod and I walk Zeus and Venus daily at the park—he has even walked his dog off leash with us and our dogs numerous times—and knowing that River Park is Tod’s sacred cow, the Mayor decreed that until the Board decides what to do about the matter, anyone at River Park with a dog off leash is in violation of Silt’s leash law.

POW!

Gobsmacked.

Again.

To be continued …

Click here to add From the Styx to your RSS reader.