|
Post by NorthWes on Apr 12, 2010 7:29:02 GMT -9
Please remember that dogs ARE NOT ALLOWED on the boardwalks at Potters Marsh - for any reason / dogs of any size. This 'dog ban' keeps from upsetting the nesting wildfowl on the marsh. It's codified under 5 AAC 95.525, is enforced year-round, and carries a penalty.
As geocachers, we have a unique privilege at Potters Marsh - an EarthCache and several regular caches are placed on the boardwalk and perimeter of the marsh, with the knowledge and permission of the Refuge Manager. He's ok with activities that bring visitors to the Refuge - AS LONG AS THEY CONFORM WITH USAGE GUIDELINES! No dogs - no trails into the marshland, nothing which necessitates leaving the boardwalk. This morning the Refuge Manager contacted me and asked me to remind geocachers about the dog rule. Dogs have upset returning wildfowl at the marsh already this spring, and ADFG is cracking down. Please help us maintain a good working relationship with the Refuge Manager, and be good stewards of the Refuge during our visits there.
|
|
|
Post by arcticbutterfly "Akbfly" on Apr 24, 2010 2:00:50 GMT -9
Does that include service dogs as well?
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Apr 25, 2010 22:06:16 GMT -9
Does that include service dogs as well? The exact language of the regulation isn't available to me right now to check. If that's an issue for someone you know, check with the ADFG Southcentral Refuge Mgrs' office first before visiting. The problem is two-fold. Dog owners aren't cleaning up behind their pooches in the parking lot and on the boardwalk (yes - ON the boardwalk) which is messy and a detriment to health. More to the point, it's a game refuge - primarily a nesting wildfowl game refuge - and the wildfowl are freaked out and put off their breeding habits by the constant appearance of canids (dogs) - especially on the boardwalk. Oddly, the sight of persons doesn't agitate them anything like the sight of a canid.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Apr 26, 2010 6:53:37 GMT -9
Doesn't matter what the Alaska Administrative Code says. No one can prohibit service dog access to any public location. That's federal law under the ADA. www.ada.gov/svcanimb.htm
|
|
|
Post by tzipora on Apr 28, 2010 21:42:19 GMT -9
Does that include service dogs as well? It does not. As mentioned, per the ADA, service animals are not to be considered "dogs", even if they are canines. Should anybody find themselves hassled for having a service animal with them, I would encourage them to contact the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights and consider filing a complaint. There would have to be an investigation in order to determine if there is a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for disallowing service animals. If any additional information is needed, please feel free to contact me.
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Apr 29, 2010 19:46:26 GMT -9
Does that include service dogs as well? It does not. As mentioned, per the ADA, service animals are not to be considered "dogs", even if they are canines. Should anybody find themselves hassled for having a service animal with them, I would encourage them to contact the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights and consider filing a complaint. There would have to be an investigation in order to determine if there is a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for disallowing service animals. If any additional information is needed, please feel free to contact me. ADFG maintains the boardwalk as a fully-accessible means of 'entering' the Wildlife Refuge, and certainly wouldn't hassle individuals on the boardwalk area with a service animal. Persons with a service animal receive extensive training in both defusing issues related to the presence of what some less-informed persons may see as simply a 'dog', and in how to integrate their partner into their current environment (socially/physically) in a passive-impact way that demonstrates their incredible value. My earlier response wasn't meant to intimate that service animals weren't welcome - only to say I didn't have the exact language of the ordinance regarding the canine restrictions in front of me. I don't like being hasty at answering such valid questions - despite an extensive lifetime personal involvement in advocacy. I will tell you that ADFG is very serious about the core issues I mentioned - loose dogs both on the boardwalk, in the parking lot, and in the marsh - as well as dogs whose owners don't clean up behind them. The stressful impact on nesting wildfowl of canids in close proximity is well-documented, and is a key factor in the decision to keep dogs off the boardwalk itself. The original post was to help fellow cachers be aware of yet another regulation in an area that's unusually friendly to geocaching - despite its 'wildlife refuge' designation. I'm confident there's no agenda there designed to block service animals from assisting their partners in a visit to the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge at northern Potters Marsh. Feel free to contact me directly at (907) 250-0321 (evenings) if you'd like to discuss this issue further.
|
|
|
Post by tzipora on Apr 30, 2010 6:28:50 GMT -9
It does not. As mentioned, per the ADA, service animals are not to be considered "dogs", even if they are canines. Should anybody find themselves hassled for having a service animal with them, I would encourage them to contact the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights and consider filing a complaint. There would have to be an investigation in order to determine if there is a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason for disallowing service animals. If any additional information is needed, please feel free to contact me. ADFG maintains the boardwalk as a fully-accessible means of 'entering' the Wildlife Refuge, and certainly wouldn't hassle individuals on the boardwalk area with a service animal. Persons with a service animal receive extensive training in both defusing issues related to the presence of what some less-informed persons may see as simply a 'dog', and in how to integrate their partner into their current environment (socially/physically) in a passive-impact way that demonstrates their incredible value. My earlier response wasn't meant to intimate that service animals weren't welcome - only to say I didn't have the exact language of the ordinance regarding the canine restrictions in front of me. I don't like being hasty at answering such valid questions - despite an extensive lifetime personal involvement in advocacy. I will tell you that ADFG is very serious about the core issues I mentioned - loose dogs both on the boardwalk, in the parking lot, and in the marsh - as well as dogs whose owners don't clean up behind them. The stressful impact on nesting wildfowl of canids in close proximity is well-documented, and is a key factor in the decision to keep dogs off the boardwalk itself. The original post was to help fellow cachers be aware of yet another regulation in an area that's unusually friendly to geocaching - despite its 'wildlife refuge' designation. I'm confident there's no agenda there designed to block service animals from assisting their partners in a visit to the Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge at northern Potters Marsh. Feel free to contact me directly at (907) 250-0321 (evenings) if you'd like to discuss this issue further. I'm sure ADFG knows how to deal with the situation appropriately. And I'm sure most folks with service animals know how to deal with the situation appropriately. My earlier response wasn't meant to intimate that there might be a problem with service animals at Potter Marsh. I did, however, want to make sure that the information was available for people who might need it. I didn't know who to contact about discrimination complaints until I started working there. As one of the folks who investigates complaints of this nature, I've found that things don't always go as smoothly as one would like. While I've only had a few complaints about service animals, it's typically an under-trained volunteer or seasonal employee who very vigilantly enforces the "no dogs" rule. I've also found that folks who have service dogs, like most people, aren't always the most graceful in difficult situations. I also know that there are some limitations to the statute, and there's no bright line.
|
|