Open Space Advisory Board Agenda and Packet 2014 07 09

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Open Space Advisory Board Minutes June 11th, 2014 Page 3 of 6 reports, when deemed necessary. Included in the draft Coyote Management Plan are relevant state, local, and federal laws and guidelines for response to coyote incidents. Before the June meeting, Catherine sent OSAB a copy of the newly published Superior Coyote Coexistence Plan to help the Board's discussion about the Louisville plan. 1. Missy commented that the paragraph about the two types of mange on page 5 are confusing. 2. Missy suggested that though staff's main emphasis is education, someone referring to the document might be more interested in encounter /incident/attack response, so they might want that to be the first thing in the document. 3. Helen asked whether Police would be included in the list of personnel authorized to use high intensity hazing techniques in the response plan. Catherine suggested that she wanted to talk to the police to check that it was appropriate before she added them to the list. Joe met with the Chief Hayes and he had expressed willingness to increase Code Enforcement and Police presence on City -owned Open Space. Joe mentioned that the new underpass at Davidson Mesa has already resulted in many more people bringing dogs to Harper Lake, where they are not allowed. Chief Hayes has expressed a willingness to help enforce this rule using Code Enforcement and possibly ticketing. 4. Helen suggested that citizens might not know that Code Enforcement is part of the Police Department and suggested that this document make that fact explicit. 5. Missy asked why the Louisville Coyote Management Plan says that throwing rocks AT coyotes for hazing is okay, while the Superior Coyote Coexistence document explicitly says NOT to throw rocks at coyotes. Catherine plans to change the language to "throwing rocks in the direction of the coyotes without making contact or harming the animal." Helen and Tom both agreed that it was important to stress not harming the coyotes. 6. Laura pointed out that a coyote -human interaction in the Superior document describes coyotes found in a homeowner's yard, which is not included in Louisville's plan. Laura suggested that including a City response to coyotes in suburban property might be appropriate. OSAB thought it needed to be included in response planning. 7. Laura pointed out that Superior seemed to be introducing a citizen hazing education program proactively, whereas the Louisville document seems to reserve hazing as a reactive policy. Mike thought that reactive hazing seemed like the right plan, as our coyote population is not currently problematic. Tom agreed, commenting that making the public have a responsibility to haze might encourage the public to overstep the hazing purview. He suggested that the poisoned meatballs recently found in Longmont and Gunbarrel might be the result of overzealous citizens trying to control coyotes. Mike indicated that a more aggressive coyote population could develop quickly, so proactive hazing could someday become the norm. Helen suggested that maybe some examples of "inappropriate hazing" could be included in the document (e.g. chasing a coyote to haze it, hazing a non - aggressive coyote, etc.). 4