homeless.jpg

Homeless camps are commonly found in Newell Creek Canyon, which will soon become a Metro-sponsored park. Hikers and off-road cyclists will be welcome on park trails, but dogs will be prohibited.

(File photo)

Late last month, Metro Council approved a public-access plan for Newell Creek Canyon, a 233-acre urban forest between downtown Oregon City and Highway 213. Oregon City residents have plenty of reasons to be excited. The wooded tract, once notorious for its homeless encampments, garbage and neglect, will feature almost four miles of trails, which will provide access to hikers and cyclists. There will be parking for users who don't live nearby, and the site may at some point feature a children's play area.

Some people may be in for an unpleasant surprise, however. Anyone who shows up with a dog will discover that Newell Creek Canyon, purchased and developed with voter-approved funding, is a Fido-free zone. Even though plans anticipate for the construction of bridges, trails for hiking and off-road cycling, a bathroom, shelters, signage -- all of the typical elements of a park -- Metro has determined that the presence of dogs, even on leash, would create an unacceptable annoyance to wildlife.

Besides, dog owners didn't show up during the planning process to demand access.

Dan Moeller, Metro's conservation program director, explained via email this week that he'd "personally attended all of the community events we hosted in Oregon City. Nobody I spoke with brought up dogs." In the hundreds of comments planners received, meanwhile, "only about a half dozen of them mention dogs. You'll also see that we received multiple times as many comments from community members who said they wanted Metro to protect streams, birds and wildlife, and to provide opportunities at Newell Creek Canyon for people to get close to the nature they've protected." One wonders, of course, how many of the latter group consider a blanket dog ban necessary to ensure the protection they value.

Oregonian editorials

reflect the collective opinion of The Oregonian editorial board, which operates independently of the newsroom.

are Helen Jung, Erik Lukens, Steve Moss and Len Reed.

To respond to this editorial:

Post your comment below, submit a

,

or write a

.

If you have questions about

the opinion section, contact Erik Lukens, editorial and commentary editor,

at

or 503-221-8142.

Most dog owners probably paid absolutely no attention to the planning of Newell Creek Canyon. Why would they? Leashed dogs have customarily been allowed in public parks, and a sensible person probably would assume that Rover would continue to be welcome. While Metro does have an unusual, decades-old ban on dogs in most parks in natural areas, officials didn't exactly broadcast that fact when asking voters to spend hundreds of millions of dollars buying park property over the past 20 years. Likewise, officials didn't broadcast Metro's anti-dog policy when seeking a five-year operating levy in 2013, and you can be sure they're not eager to broadcast it when seeking a renewal, possibly as early as November.

There is an important lesson for dog owners here: If they want their pets to have access to Newell Creek Canyon or the bulk of Metro's 17,000-acre portfolio of parkland, they're going to have to organize and demand it. How do you suppose cyclists, who also deserve access to Metro's parks and natural areas, ensured that knobby tires may roll even where paws are banned?

Dog owners certainly have a reasonable argument for access. Even if you accept as true Metro's claim that dogs frighten wildlife, it isn't a particularly compelling reason to ban them. Metro is clearly willing to accept some impact to wildlife in exchange for public park access. Otherwise, it would have banned people entirely, including those on bikes. The arbitrary decision to draw the line at dogs arises from political considerations rather than scientific ones. Metro policy is set by seven elected councilors. They could, if they chose, decide that allowing their constituents to walk their dogs in Newell Creek Canyon and similar areas is worth slightly more inconvenience to wildlife. Newell Creek Canyon is, after all, an urban forest.

The reasons Metro councilors should do so are numerous. They should do it to keep faith with voters, most of whom surely had no knowledge of the dog ban and might have voted differently if they had. They should do it because the end result of Metro's dog discrimination is an affront to common sense: Mountain biking is OK, but walking a dog isn't? Really? They should do it, finally, because using urban parks efficiently is essential given the density of development produced by Oregon's land-use system and the environmental values it embodies. Does it really make sense to force someone who lives near Newell Creek Canyon -- as many do -- to hop in a car and drive to a different park simply to walk a dog?

To push Metro councilors in the right direction, there are a few things dog owners can do.

Carlotta Collette is the Metro councilor who represents Oregon City, and she supports the ban on dogs in Newell Creek Canyon and in similar areas. Dog owners who believe she and the dog ban are wrong should let her know. Her office phone number is (503) 797-1887, and her email is carlotta.collette@oregonmetro.gov.

Dog owners also should prepare to vote "no" on any extension of Metro's operating levy for natural areas and parkland until its ban is amended.

Perhaps most importantly, dog owners need to recognize that they are, in Metro's eyes, an undeserving user group. As such, their pets will continue to be banned unreasonably from public land until they organize and demand access.