04-20-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING, APRIL 20, 1982 -5- 7. REGIONAL PARK RESERVE AMENDMENTS - Continued - Lockyear - County will not be spending alot of dollars to develop the demonstration farm within the next five years. --Mottaz - 'concerned about the number of horses that could be in the park. Mike Fox confirmed as many as 200 horses at any given time. Does the County mean to set up a facility in the park to accomodate this large number of animals. --Fox - technically possible that there could be 2,000 or 200,000 horses in the park at one time. --Mottaz - wouldn't good planning dictate setting a limit on the number of horses. --Fox - current capacity of land is such that it could handle 200 horses a day. Decision was based on the demand by the public - public being.the primary user. Out of all the potential users for the park andgroupswhere interest was solicited,. such as archers, swimmers, bird watchers, bicyclists, etc.. Received -an ovewahelming response for a horse trail system with over -night camping. Only other response was for a,,trail to accomodate 4-wheel vehicles. Master Plan has provided for these other interests, in the same vein have provided for the horse people. --Lockyear - referenced page 10.- number of parking spaces would not allow 200 horses. --Mottaz - briefly reviewed comments made at the County Park meeting. Obvious that the horse people had the strongest lobbying group, providing for the strongest group is a poor substitute for good planning. Concerned that this is receiving greater priority in the development schedule - also, although it is not included in the plan, there was discussion on trail connections with the Mn/Wi Trail and a connection from the Washington County Fair Grounds to the Regional Park Reserve. Although it is - proposed, horse trails cannot be shared by hikers, bicyclists, etc. How can limits be imposed on some things, but not on horses. Should be a built-in limit on the number of horses that use the park - if not,then the 20o active use is in question. --Eder - recommended a change under Development Concept Revegetation and Wildlife, page 4 - delete "In the event that animal populations become to large or disproportionate the Park Manager will hold controlled hunts or otherwise intervene to maintain a balance."; and add a statement•.that references that there will be a County policy relating to.how an imbalance in animal population will be managed. There should be no connotation in the plan that there will be controlled hunts. There should not be hunts in the park - there are other ways to manage over- population. This is Eder's opinion. —Lockyear - clarified the Council's position,that since the Council has not discussed hunting in the park, the County Board will just be made aware of Lhke Elmo's concern about hunting in the park. --Eder - wants the County Board to develop a policy to intervene to maintain a balance in the event that animal populations become too large or disproportionate. --Lockyear - generally this is the way over -population is handled,. - there is a controlled hunt. This has been done in other Regional Parks - acting on how this has been previously handled. would want to indicate that the Park Manager will intervene to maintain the balance - can strike "will hold controlled hunts" and remove that connotation. Cannot say that the County at some time would not want to do that - want to reserve the right for the County to make a decision on how to control a population imbalance.