The South Portlander

I have serious questions for Mr. Labrie and Mr. Crosby.
1. Why should our city be much more restrictive than neighboring communities regarding people with dogs and their access to beaches? I assume that you do not make use of other nearby community beaches like Higgins or Old Orchard Beach? You both often phrase more restrictions as being common sense and, if that’s so, I wonder why other communities don’t have the restrictions you propose.
2. Would your concerns about sanitation be addressed by a change from morning to night hours during the summer? For example, it seems that many of your arguments hinge on people using the beach after the dogs have been there. Would this address that concern for you or are you willing to accept nothing less than a ban of dogs during the summer?
3. I would be interested to hear more about the supposed dangers of so many dogs being in one place. I see lots of kids walking with their family dogs and never felt that they were in any danger. If you moved all these dogs into a dog park how would this be less dangerous? There would still a number of dogs in one place. What is the difference besides one place being by your home and one not?

Are “dogs” the only thing to discuss in South Portland? So much time, ink, paper, band width and baggies has been taken up with this matter, not only are people growing tired of these discussions but people are becoming too narrowly aligned.
Surely, sitting down and compromising needs to take place. No one is absolutely right, and no one is absolutely wrong.
The discussion is beginning to take on the volume of the yellow ribbon debate, which certainly is not needed again. Let’s get a compromise which allows dog owners to walk their dogs at a reasonable time and which protects the adjacent property owners and the folks who like to go for walks or tuns on the beach without dogs.
Pretty soon we will turn a valuable resource of our city into something no one will want to use. Please, let’s not let that happen.

You can’t compare SP to Scarborough or Old Orchard, those towns have far more beach than South Portland does.  We have one very small beach.  I’m sorry, but humans come first.

Regarding your first question, Scott, it may simply be that South Portland has very little public beach access in comparison to neighboring communities such as Cape Elizabeth, Scarborough and Old Orchard Beach. We have one public beach of moderate size.

The city of Portland is in a similar position to South Portland - their only public beach is East End Beach. No dogs are allowed on East End Beach from Memorial Day through Labor Day each year. Therefore Portland is already more restrictive than South Portland, which does allow limited dog access at Willard during those months. Your first question is misleading because it ignores this fact.

And I agree with an earlier commenter on a different subject: this is far less important a topic than the state of our schools and a great many other subjects.

Sharky,
Portland allows dogs off leash on EEB after 5pm Memorial Day to Labor Day. They are allowed off leash all day for the rest of the year.

All good questions and I am happy to answer them.  Sharky is right, compared to other places SP has a very small beach therefor concentration in a small area becomes a problem.  All citizens of South Portland already pay for a beach so they should not feel as though they have to travel to a neighboring town to go to the beach.

For question 2 I know some people say that the tide will clean the beach over night so evening hours would make it better.  I see two problems with that.  First the tide does not cover the whole beach. There is still a lot of soft sand that would not be cleaned and for the most part that is where people lay in the sand.  The other issue I see is that on a warm night families are still there at 6 PM and it would cause quite a conflict if people where having a picnic and dogs started to show up.

For #3
You reference kids walking “ their dog “ There is a major difference between your own dog and someone else’s dog. I let my grand daughter get down on the floor and play with our dog because they are familiar with each other and I know my dog as does she.  I do not know some strangers dog.  I do not know how it will respond in different situations and I am not will to find out.  There is no way anyone can predict how a dog will act all the time. As far as moving dogs into a dog park I think it would be a very irresponsible and stupid parent that would let their child play in a dog park.

What’sUp
I think we are making a reasonable compromise with 6 months on and 6 months off.  If the people walking their dogs on the beach during the summer would agree to even sharing of the beach then this controversy would go away. It is up to them.  Councilor Beecher even put on the table 5 months off and 7 months on.  That gives dog owners more than half the year.  I would think it’s worth taking a real look at it before the possibility of losing year round access.

For anyone that wants to do some research look at the links on our web site.  savewillardbeach.com
The one common thread between all the information is don’t let children play were dog defecate.  It’s pretty straight forward. 
These reports come from reputable government agencies and universities.

Please take the time to look into it.  Then make an educated decision.

Regarding the point of “how much beach” we have in South Portland, I would argue that we could also look at the number of people who make use of the beaches. Wouldn’t we all agree that more people use OOB than Willard? The same with Higgins? So, if there is more beach, but more people that use it, I am not sure I see the point. Is it that people have less of a chance in sunbathing on a spot that a dog has defecated on earlier that day? If playing on or enjoying the beach where a dog has “done it’s business” is such a deal breaker for you, Mr. Crosby, would you be willing to take the chance at a larger beach? There is still that chance that you’re lying in a place a dog has done its business earlier, right?

I do agree with you that Willard Beach is a resource belonging to all the people of South Portland. So, why, during summer months, should I, as a tax payer of South Portland, have to go to Higgins Beach or other neighboring communities to walk my dog during the summer? Remember, dog owners and their furry friends have access to the beach for just three hours of an over twelve hour day during the summer. I am actually a person willing to offer compromise but saying you want dogs off for six months out of a year, period, doesn’t seem like any kind of compromise. It is asking dog owners for a concession to give up their access to beach during the summer (actually longer), period. For people wondering why dog owners haven’t worked with your group to resolve these issues, I just want to point out what you want - dogs off the beach not just for the summer but for half the year.

Children do walk with their dogs on Willard Beach, Mr. Crosby. I am not aware of a rash of dog bites on Willard Beach. If you are, I am sure that would boost your argument quite a bit. But I am guessing you cannot point to examples of children being attacked on Willard Beach. So, with your proposal of a dog park to replace Willard Beach, what are parents who want to walk their dogs and their children together to do? You suggest a dog park is unsafe for children. I can think of at least three parents who walk their dog and their children together daily (this includes interacting with “other” dogs.) Are you really calling these parents “stupid?” I can assure you that I respect these parents and know they care deeply for their children and would not needlessly put them in harm’s way.

Your argument seems to be that a parent should walk or exercise their dog separately from the time that they walk with their child. I don’t think that is a reasonable argument.

If a person’s dog cannot be trusted among people, they should not be allowed off-leash at Willard. If a dog were to attack someone on Willard, I would imagine they would be subject to legal proceedings. Because you are worried about someone being irresponsible, you are suggesting barring all responsible people from using Willard Beach.

Regarding the health risks of dogs, I have looked at the information provided by the CDC. The takeaway I get from it is that people need to pick up after their dogs and children should wash up after a day at the beach (which I think would be the case regardless of if dogs had been there).

http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/animals/dogs.htm

If people began getting sick from exposure on Willard Beach, I would be the first to join you in restricting dogs for public safety. From the information I have read, this isn’t a big concern, though.

Scott, I don’t think you completely read my response.  you simply can not compare OOB or Higgins to willard.  Take a close look at them.  our 2200 feet of beach does not even come close, and crescent beach has dogs banned during the summer.
Scott I did not call parents stupid that walk with their children and dog at the same time. What I said
“I think it would be a very irresponsible and stupid parent that would let their child play in a dog park.” Notice I said dog park.
South Portland has many other places to walk dogs and children at the same time.  You make it sound as though Willard is the only place.  Not so.
Scott You said “I am actually a person willing to offer compromise “ What would that compromise be? I am open to hear it.  Dan and I have meet with two people from SOPOdog group and are working on a solution and your constructive input would be helpful. I do not know of any dog bites however I have plenty of first hand reports of children being knocked down, older adults being knocked down, food being taken, play toys being taken, personal items being peed on, poop left on the beach, dogs in the dunes etc.  I personally am ok with Councilor Beecher’s proposal of 5 off and 7 on.  But I will tell you Scott that almost all the people that I talk too or contact me say get the dogs off the beach all year. So this would be a good time to work on a true compromise before it goes to referendum because if it does it may result in a 100% ban.

http://kidshealth.org/PageManager.jsp?dn=bbch&lic=245&ps=107&cat_id=20045&article_set=22841

The biggest mistake in this whole ridiculous affair was made by the city council.  By becoming sheriff and mediator they guaranteed that the majority of citizens would have to watch this childish feud drag on and on while more important town issues loose the level of importance they deserve.  Its to late to change this situation, the council will have to once again become a lightning rod for embarrassment and scorn as they fiddle f*rt their way to a no win resolution certain to maintain the level of angry discourse for years to come.  Chief Googins must love having this one taken off his plate, he is perhaps the smartest politician in town watching on the sidelines as the civilians destroy themselves with endless drivel over a responsibility that sits squarely on his shoulders.  Pavlov’s city council strikes again, responding to what they know best, absurd minor issues sure to make South Portland a laughing stock throughout the region.  Buzz buzz buzz, cock a doodle doo, doggie doggie poo poo.

I find it to be a promise or a threat that dogs might be off of the beach all together if it goes to a vote. Why the intimidation factor if you are right Gary? If you are right about the disease you believe is spread by dog waste all dogs should be banned from all public spaces. People lay down or sit in grass all over the world and dogs have done their business there too. It just a foolish argument. The beach is no different than any other area in town, the grass next to the sidewalk, the lawn of an office building, another park, etc. If dog waste were going to kill us it wouldn’t just kill us from Willard Beach.
Your argument makes no sense and it focuses only on your “pet project” getting dogs off Willard.
Also your link to the Maine Healthy Beaches report is to a report that is very old. Do a little more research and you will find one that is more recent and it states there is no risk from dog waste on public beaches. I will look it up for you and provide a link. Your site provides only your side of the story, so it is very misleading. If you tout your site as an informative one you should put all of the information on it.
Also I find it very hard to believe that Mr. LaBrie cares so much about the beach he would care now if he lived on the beach or not. The reason is this - before he built his house there I didn’t even know he existed. Now he is all over the news, but this has been going on for over ten years, Mr. and Mrs. Gray say 20 years. So where has he been all of this time - not fighting for the rights of people.

I find it interesting as an observer to this issue that Mr. Crosby and Labrie say they want 6 months of dogs off the beach completely, and yet the website for the savewillardbeach says they voted to ban dogs completely year round.  I went to the site to get facts, and I got confused.
Also, they have both said that if the dog group does not agree to this “compromise”, then the referendum would ban dogs completely… I am curious, why would the group look to ban dogs 100% with a referendum, if in fact the goal is to share?
It seems to me that it would be difficult to compromise with a group who is not clear as to what they are proposing… a compromise would seem to be on-leash area and off-leash area to this location and perhaps other locations. 
Compromise is not one way or the other.  In a compromise each group gives something up to get something in return.
I understand that the dog group has the position that enforcement is needed and not further restrictions.  I can follow this thought in that if there were some way to enforce new restrictions, then they wouldn’t be needed because someone would be there to enforce the current rules.  True. 
I understand that the dog group would be willing to pay a fee to walk dogs off-leash in the city, my understanding is that the dogs are to remain under voice control, not just be allowing to be off-leash.  It seems as though there should be some way to allow those dogs who are able to be recalled to walk off leash, and those who are not behaved and not able to be voice controlled to not be allowed to walk off-leash… how would this be done?  how would this fee based issue work?  if there is no enforcement now, who will monitor this fee based option?  how would the dog who is allowed to be walked off leash in a location and one not be allowed to walk off leash be differentitated?  would they wear something?  who pays to have this additional “tag” or whatever made?
Mr. Crosby, who will pay for the continued up-keep of this dog park?  Who will pave the parking lot, plow it, maintain fencing, mowing, and other such issues?  Will the city and my tax dollars being paying for this?  I have no problem paying for essential community services whether I use them or not, but a dog park now too?  Or will you and Mr. Labrie continue to raise money to pay for the park?

What I find interesting is that two republicans go running for government solutions when it suits their own personal goals.  Belief in personal liberty and individual responsibility go right out the window when they want something for themselves. Dog parks we all know involve a diversion of tax dollars regardless of the false promise of raising money to fence the sand lot in.  Of course these will be the same republicans who will jump on their soap box and sound off about spending money on the high school or education in general.  They only seem to view government as a means to their own ends.  Divisive and pathetic.

Annie, that vote just shows the side of the people who want to get people off the beach, not share it
it’s about making it private, not shared use. Just like the fenced off grass that is only at one point of the beach. the rest of the beach could use that same kind of planting, but it is only in one area.
this isn’t about sharing, it’s about taking away a public resource from people who use it year round. And the promise that if there is a vote the beach will be lost year round is a promise that the beach will become private year round.

Again good questions, As far as inconsistencies on how much time our group want dogs off the beach, we have some that want them off all year and some that want them off 6 months.  I was not threatening referendum, just pointing out if it does it may end up with more time off the beach than just 6 months.  DogGonnit, If you can’t understand that there is a difference between the beach and other grassy areas in the city then I am not sure what to say.  I do like the pun “pet project” The reason that many people want dogs off the beach year round is that they are simply sick of them intruding their space and feel the beach is not an appropriate place for dogs.  It’s not like Willard beach is the only place to walk a dog in South Portland.  I am just telling you the input I am receiving. As far as paying for it.  An increase of between 10 and 15 dollars a year on dog license would pay for all the up keep.  As a dog owner myself I don’t find that to be a problem.  It is not the responsibility of the general public to pay for the up keep of our pets.  How about some of you coming up with some solutions rather than bash our solutions.  Lastly maybe some of you can use your real names.  As you all know I have never been intimidating or nasty and it would at least be nice to know who I am talking too.

As a comparative newcomer to the Willard beach area Mr LeBrie does not know or does not understand that people who wish for access to the beach with their dogs have compromised with people who do not wish for dogs on the beach for many years.
Polarity in a dispute needs compromise from both sides in order for there to be a suitable solution. Having said this, it is my opinion that the suitable solution has already been reached and the hours that are available for dog access are the most workable for all concerned.
As Messrs Lebrie and Crosby like to use the “ moving target” arguments in their complaints, ie once one complaint is disproved move to another ( Mr LeBrie goes from the “toilet bowl” to his displeasure at watching dogs defecate ! Mr Crosby to any straw he can grasp.) I do not see that any other compromise is likely to be attained. I am firmly convinced that the agenda for getting dog access to the beach removed will bring the required result of having many less people on the beach in order that a small minority may enjoy their private solitude.
The FACTS that are not accepted by this minority, Messrs Lebrie, Crosby et al, is that two police officers have found very little issues with dogs off leash at Willard Beach, and the need for more enforcement is unneccessary. It seems paradoxical to me that with the call for more enforcement we trust the judgement of police officers to issue summonses, but not their judgement to give evidence. No reports from local or national health care authorities and providers of outbreaks of sickness or desease emanating from Willard Beach. No reports to the law enforcement agencies of dog bites or complaints of dog behaviour at Willard Beach.
All of this has been noted before and,of course, has fallen on deaf ears. The solution to this problem is a compromise from the anti-dog group. I suggest the following to correct the 30/70% split of Mr Crosby’s complaint and to fall inline with Mr LeBrie’s “50/50...... period “ .
I would suggest a 50/50 split of the hours available for access to Willard Beach for the public. ie 15 hours are available all year round therefore 7 1/2 hours without dogs and 7 1/2 hours with dogs, all year round. If the hours are for dogs 6-9am and 4:30-9pm this will give the public access to the beach without the presence of dogs 7 1/2 of the best hours on the beach all year round.
Dog owners will have to sacrifice by having to walk in some relatively dark hours in the autumn and winter seasons. Non-dog owners would compromise by sharing the evening hours all year round.
This suggestion is very workable with signs the same for all year round. It may also cut down on some vandalism in the evening hours.
Ultimately I am pessimistic that any solution will be found and any laws passed now will be probably be reversed next year and the whole discourse will start again. As I have said many times this is unfortunately not a problem about dogs.

Mr. Crosby, let’s please not question someone’s reading comprehension when they don’t agree with you. I did read your entire message.
To say that you can’t compare OOB or Higgins to Willard totally ignores what I said about the number of people using these resources. Part of your argument is that there is a health danger from dogs doing their business on the beach. If that is your contention, what does it matter how much space there is on the beach? Are you saying that since there is less of a chance to lie in a spot where a dog has gone to the bathroom earlier in a larger area that it makes it okay?
You’re going to have to explain in more detail why it is stupid to bring children to a dog park but not to the beach. Both are areas that would have many off-leash dogs, correct? Or maybe your definition of play is rolling around all over the ground? It isn’t clear to me why someone would be stupid to bring their child to a dog park but not stupid to bring them to Willard Beach during a time when dogs are there. I doubt I am the only person not seeing the differentiation. If there is such a large difference between the beach and a dog park than perhaps you’re saying that a dog park is not a good alternative. For the record, I have seen children both places and I don’t think the parents were stupid or irresponsible.

You say that there are other places to walk a dog and a child at the same time. On leash, perhaps. Off leash I can only think of Hinckley and Willard. I see people with strollers often at Willard but Hinckley may not be the ideal place for strollers. Ignoring the distinction of off-leash and on-leash walking is kind of like saying that one six month period is just as desirable for beach activity as another in Maine.

You asked for some compromises so here are some ideas that I have. Obviously, other people will not agree with me, but here are some things that I’d be willing to discuss.

1. Changing hours of dog walking to night hours instead of morning during the summer.

2. Having a portion of the beach be on-leash (but not as draconian as bottling dog owners up in the cove - that is too restrictive, IMO).

3. Charging dog walkers a fee that would be used toward stepped up enforcement.

I also think that some of the recommendations of the task force should be looked at. But, frankly, I think all of this is a non-starter because you want dogs off beach for six months out of the year. Do you see agreeing to anything less than a ban of dogs from the beach for a period of time?

This is from your website:

“In our first meeting we ended up with 13 people voting to have the group go forward united in banning dogs all together from the beach and one vote 6 months on and 6 months off.”

In this comment thread you say:

“we have some that want them off all year and some that want them off 6 months”

While technically true, does that really seem like an accurate description? 13 to 1 want dogs off the beach all year.

Regarding the input you receive, keep in mind that you’ve put yourself out there as a champion for restricting dog owner’s access to the beach. I would expect that people who approach you about this issue and decide to discuss it with you probably agree with you. I am a member of SoPoDog and if you were to go by my anecdotal experience then dog hours should be expanded, not restricted. Most people in the city probably don’t have a strong opinion either way since this doesn’t effect a majority of people in the city (at least that would be my guess).

I do feel like your side is using the referendum as a tool to threaten. The vibe I get is that you want people to accept 6 months on, 6 months off in order to not have ALL access taken away. If your group brings it to referendum, which Mr. Labrie seems to suggest you would like to according to the story in the Sentry, then why not have it 6 months on, 6 months off if that is what you want?

Regarding the link you sent about health risks, it seems to me, and hopefully someone will correct me if I am wrong, that the article deals with feces. So, if it is picked up, there would be no problem. It also seems to suggest that transmission is from ingestion. I would contend that a beach, even without dogs, is probably a place where you want to pay extra attention to what a child puts in their mouth. The article mentions that people with household pets are exposed more (makes sense) so, if this article is of grave concern, I guess no families with children should have pets.

My point is that you’ll never be able to shield people completely from risk. Kids get lice at school and pass germs on at daycare. It is the seriousness of the risk that needs to be evaluated and from the research I’ve done, I don’t believe there is a serious health risk. Most people on the task force panel seem to agree with my thoughts on the issue.

Mr. Young,
I could not possibly agree with you more vehemently. It is time the pro-dog side stopped compromising. Bring this thing to a head. Heck, bring it to public referendum. Let the facts be shown, and let all of South Portland speak.
What is often forgotten in this discussion is that just a few short years ago, the privatization (I don’t care that you deny it, it is your goal) folks wanted kayaks and dinghies off the beach. Then it was dogs. Back then the dog issue was erosion of beach grass. Then it was dog attacks. Then it was feces. Then it was barking. Then it was owners calling dogs.
This is not about dogs. Never has been. It just so happens that the privatizers - to coin a term - have run up against a worthy foe for once, so the fight has gotten nasty.
All of South Portland needs ALL of the facts, and all of the history of this battle to understand that ultimately the goal here is turn Willard Beach into Nantucket. i.e., essentially private above the high-water mark.
I for one tap you, Mr. Young, as the official spokesperson for the to-be-formed “Willard Beach Freedom of Access PAC.” You are a master with the written word and you remove emotion from the fight. Let us show that this is an issue of an outsider yet again attempting to limit access to what has traditionally been a neighborhood mixed-use area - enjoyed by all peacefully until behemoth homes began to appear - and you will get the attention of the electorate. What say? If nominated will you run, and if elected, will you serve?

I do not think this is an issue of people wanting to privatize Willard Beach, rather, it is a stubborn compulsiveness that makes some people unable to settle conflict without a personal sense of victory.  Apparently dog owners have run up against a perfect storm of egocentric personalities whose narcissism makes ending a fight with them virtually impossible.  Waging a public argument is pointless and futile and dog owners would better serve their cause by working quietly behind the scenes to prepare for a referendum.  Stop the emailing, get off the chat boards, and start organizing. Otherwise, as a group, you begin to look just as obsessive as Mr. Labrie and Mr. Crosby and risk loosing public support.  The entire affair has become a form of black humor, bizarre entertainment worthy of a John Waters movie.  So please ignore my advice my prurient interest has me totally on the fence.

Dear Gary: Let’s be honest. The vote to get dogs off the beach entirely at your meeting of 14 people was 13-1 to get dogs off the beach entirely, all year. Winter, summer, spring and fall. All of the time. And with the dogs go the people who enjoy themselves. I also don’t understand the difference between Willard Beach and other public parks. They are public. What is the difference between laying on the grass that was peed on and laying on the sand that was peed on? I don’t understand your argument. Also if you don’t like people not using their names, I suggest you give up blogging all together. It is not a place for people who do not want to use names to use them. It is the blogger’s choice. I do know that your member John G is a blogger who does not use his full name and calls people derogatory names so who would want to connect with any of you directly?

So when you talk about your vote, say it accurately, it was an overwhelming majority 13 people voted to get dogs off the beach entirely, and one voted not to. 14 people voted to have dogs off the beach for 6 months. Call it what it is, privatization of a public place. Get the dogs off, get the people off.

And again if you can’t handle the heat, get out of the blogging. I for one am tired of people asking for names when it can be an anonymous blog. Get over it, that’s the way it’s set up.

Mike,
I appreciate your comments and have replied via your email address.
Anthony Young

Scott- and when you say “most people” you are saying 6 people believed there was no significant health risk of dogs on the beach, and three not agreeing with that statement. The three who did not agree are Gary Crosby, Devon Gray and Jim Hughes- our city councilor. So you are correct. 6-3 is the majority, and the task force also did not recommend changing hours or getting dogs of the beach. This referendum has come forward because 2 of the 3 didn’t get their way. Also Scott, by the way you write I do not question your ability to understand what you read, but I do question why any of us even bother to discuss points with people who misrepresent themselves and say “let’s share” when it really means, “let’s take over”, that’s the point here.

Mr. Crosby, I would say in reply to your request for others to come up with solutions… the reason I wouldn’t is that I have no issue.  I frequent many public spaces and do not find dogs on the greenbelt any more of an annoyance than bikes or other users, dogs at Hinckley Park… well, the only real issue I have is the dog that gets in to the garden, but most of the time the owner is recalling it quickly… perhaps that area should be on-leash, at Clark’s Pond I have seen dogs and have had no issues.  I use many of the open spaces and don’t think that dogs need to be banned.  Personally i don’t use the beach much in the height of summer due to the concentration of families.  i prefer to be there during quieter times myself.
I have been in these areas enough to even recognize dogs and their owners…

I have a problem, I don’t have children but I pay for schools, parks and playgrounds for them to use. As you should not have to pay for my pet, I should not have to pay for your very expensive child. Is that a good way to be part of a community? Let’s split it all up. Oh - wait a minute, it is all split up. Thanks

Gee Communitysplit, did you go to school?  Equating paying for your pet and school funding is bizarre and smacks of the greed that many use to rationalize voting against a quality education.  Of course when you go to your doctor, or speak with loan officer, or chat with your home contractor you expect them to deliver quality service and be able to string a sentence or two together while doing it.  How sad it is to hear statements like yours and realize that people actually vote on funding for schools without understanding that a quality education is the foundation that makes America great.

Last night the city council was supposed to meet again to begin discussing, in earnest, the committee’s recommendations.  Does anyone know how it went?

"If you are okay with little kids being knocked down, old people being knocked down, dogs defecating and urinating on a play ground, dogs running in the dunes, having people that are scared of dogs not use the beach, people that live on the beach having to deal with barking dogs then just say so.”

Exaggerations Gary, and you know it. In politics, which seems to be your ambition, its called “negative campaigning “! It was not long ago that you were complaining about dogs defecating and urinating all over the beach causing a health hazard. That has now been disproved so now you move on to the playground and “children”. All good politicians want to save the children, Gary..........ask Ms Beecher, its a very old and cynical ploy, even Mr Obama kisses children.
My name has always been on my postings but you have never seen fit to refer to any of them. May I presume that in not commenting on my postings that you agree with me when I say that the allegations you and your group make are “trivial and petty” because the ACO has reported that there are very few issues with dogs off leash on Willard Beach ? May I presume that my idea of a 50/50 split, so emphatically demanded by Mr LePrie, of the actual daily hours allowed on the beach.........7.5 hours without dogs and 7.5 hours with dogs all year round is something you would agree to ? May I presume that you would agree with me people landscaping the beach in front of the Beach Street entrance, removing natural objects from the beach, and reinstalling beach signs to suit their own purposes and in doing so engender a perverted sense of beach ownership or stewardship ?
It has always been very clear to me that this issue is not about dogs and if you think it is Gary, you are being, at the very least, naive.