Views on Pet Access at Willard Beach http://www.southportlander.com/index.php/article/views_on_pet_access_at_willard_beach/ en-us lfullert@gmail.com Copyright 2008 2008-11-07 T;13:13:00+00:00 Comment by Wizardofoz Charleston86@aol.com Dogs are joyful constituents of Willard Beach day after day- even when it is 12 degrees outside and snowing. There are many beaches at which dogs are not allowed off leash, like Crescent Beach right down the street. To be sane and healthy, dogs need a place to run,play, and swim; dog owners are tax payers too. Just like people without children pay for schools, people without dogs need to allow for a few spaces dogs can become fit, healthy and well-socialized. What is next, banning kids in Cape Elizabeth from restaurants because people are annoyed by them? The SaveWillardBeach group has a “your little dog too, Toto” fanticism that worries me and seems very vengeful. Dogs are joyful constituents of Willard Beach day after day- even when it is 12 degrees outside and snowing. There are many beaches at which dogs are not allowed off leash, like Crescent Beach right down the street. To be sane and healthy, dogs need a place to run,play, and swim; dog owners are tax payers too. Just like people without children pay for schools, people without dogs need to allow for a few spaces dogs can become fit, healthy and well-socialized. What is next, banning kids in Cape Elizabeth from restaurants because people are annoyed by them? The SaveWillardBeach group has a “your little dog too, Toto” fanticism that worries me and seems very vengeful.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Anthony Young http://aol.com So port…......... I’m sorry, in reading your submission I did not understand that an answer about SoPo Dog was requested. It’s quite probable that some do exaggerate, but in the usual run of things it doesn’t make sense to. After all people with dogs are usually the basis for complaint. The only real complaint, that I have heard, by “dog people” of unwanted behaviour on the Beach is usually confined to allegations against one person. I have not encountered the actions alleged, although I’ve seen the person on the Beach quite often. I believe the problem in finding a solution is that both sides feel that in giving ‘an inch’ a ‘mile’ will be taken. I must say that I have ideas on a solution, and a fellow blogger (pro dog ,so to speak) is very much in accord with me. My problem is I do not know who is “moderate” on the “other side of the dog spectrum”. Anthony Young So port….........
I’m sorry, in reading your submission I did not understand that an answer about SoPo Dog was requested. It’s quite probable that some do exaggerate, but in the usual run of things it doesn’t make sense to. After all people with dogs are usually the basis for complaint. The only real complaint, that I have heard, by “dog people” of unwanted behaviour on the Beach is usually confined to allegations against one person. I have not encountered the actions alleged, although I’ve seen the person on the Beach quite often.
I believe the problem in finding a solution is that both sides feel that in giving ‘an inch’ a ‘mile’ will be taken. I must say that I have ideas on a solution, and a fellow blogger (pro dog ,so to speak) is very much in accord with me. My problem is I do not know who is “moderate” on the “other side of the dog spectrum”.
Anthony Young

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by So Port So Port Anthony Young, That was a good answer and I think you are probably one of the moderates that could help us find the middle ground.  However I noticed you didn’t answer if you thought that SODOG is “prone to exaggerate their encounters” to spin the issue in their favor.  I just want this issue put to rest.  The City has real problems.  If there is a referendum “gun” to each sides head, maybe they can act like adults and play in the sand box together.  Pun intended. Anthony Young,
That was a good answer and I think you are probably one of the moderates that could help us find the middle ground.  However I noticed you didn’t answer if you thought that SODOG is “prone to exaggerate their encounters” to spin the issue in their favor.  I just want this issue put to rest.  The City has real problems.  If there is a referendum “gun” to each sides head, maybe they can act like adults and play in the sand box together.  Pun intended.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Anthony Young http://aol.com So Port…........ There have been some examples for your assumption, some City councillors have said that they have received “many” and in one case “many,many” emails from people complaining about dogs. When asked to produce them it turned out to be only a handful. One ex-City councillor alleged that old people were being knocked down by dogs at the Beach, when the facts surfaced it was found that old people were fearful of being knocked down and nothing apparently had actually happened. Of course there is always Gary Crosby’s tales of life at the Beach ! One thing I can agree with you about is the notion of “radicals”........ if it wasn’t for them thoughtful people of moderation could have settled this problem long ago. The problem I find with a referendum is that it will be decided, and I have stated this before, by people who do not use Willard Beach and in many cases do not even know where it is. This fact inevitably means people will vote according to their like or dislike of dogs, which, of course, has nothing to do with dog access to Willard Beach. In much the same way the result will be influenced by the side with the best PR. PR being PR you do not always have to use facts. Anthony Young So Port…........
There have been some examples for your assumption, some City councillors have said that they have received “many” and in one case “many,many” emails from people complaining about dogs. When asked to produce them it turned out to be only a handful. One ex-City councillor alleged that old people were being knocked down by dogs at the Beach, when the facts surfaced it was found that old people were fearful of being knocked down and nothing apparently had actually happened. Of course there is always Gary Crosby’s tales of life at the Beach !
One thing I can agree with you about is the notion of “radicals”........ if it wasn’t for them thoughtful people of moderation could have settled this problem long ago.
The problem I find with a referendum is that it will be decided, and I have stated this before, by people who do not use Willard Beach and in many cases do not even know where it is. This fact inevitably means people will vote according to their like or dislike of dogs, which, of course, has nothing to do with dog access to Willard Beach.
In much the same way the result will be influenced by the side with the best PR. PR being PR you do not always have to use facts.
Anthony Young

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by So Port So Port Anthony Young, So am I to assume that you also think that citizens that are the other side of the dog spectrum are also “prone to exaggerate their encounters” with dogs and other owners to spin the situation in their favor?  Or is this something that only those people who dislike or are nervous around dogs are prone to do?  Both sides of this equation are radicals that want nothing more then the city to be off limits to dogs or one great big dog park.  Lets let the citizens decide in a referendum, put 4 options on the November ballet and lets get this device issue off the table.  LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE. Anthony Young,
So am I to assume that you also think that citizens that are the other side of the dog spectrum are also “prone to exaggerate their encounters” with dogs and other owners to spin the situation in their favor?  Or is this something that only those people who dislike or are nervous around dogs are prone to do?  Both sides of this equation are radicals that want nothing more then the city to be off limits to dogs or one great big dog park.  Lets let the citizens decide in a referendum, put 4 options on the November ballet and lets get this device issue off the table.  LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Anthony Young http://aol.com No, So Port, you are wrong….....I have never said That there are not “bad” dogs or “bad” owners, but I do question the extent. In my view, as I have often stated, people who dislike or are nervous around dogs often, and I’m sure not always intentionally, are prone to exaggerate their encounters. As you can see with “Whodat” he wants vigilantes on the Beach to catch the “criminal” dog owners. Does he want the same for people who litter profusely throughout the beach ? How about those who remove and reposition City signage on the Beach ? If it’s traffic offenses you are including, how about people who drive past children or old people who are standing in a pedestrian crossing or “jay walkers” ? Obviously he is not driven to have “public hangings” for these, just people with dogs. No, So Port, you are wrong….....I have never said That there are not “bad” dogs or “bad” owners, but I do question the extent. In my view, as I have often stated, people who dislike or are nervous around dogs often, and I’m sure not always intentionally, are prone to exaggerate their encounters.
As you can see with “Whodat” he wants vigilantes on the Beach to catch the “criminal” dog owners. Does he want the same for people who litter profusely throughout the beach ? How about those who remove and reposition City signage on the Beach ? If it’s traffic offenses you are including, how about people who drive past children or old people who are standing in a pedestrian crossing or “jay walkers” ? Obviously he is not driven to have “public hangings” for these, just people with dogs.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by ugh! ugh! Our own city major was there the same weekend.  i believe he is even allergic… what did he see first hand?  I saw him there. Our own city major was there the same weekend.  i believe he is even allergic… what did he see first hand?  I saw him there.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by enough already enough already Why should I have to pay for a dog park out of my taxes? Why should I have to pay for a dog park out of my taxes?

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by So Port So Port Anthony Young, You must live in such a perfect black and white world as you seen to indicate that you have never seen a “bad bog” or bad dog owner.  I would love to live in your world.  Are you implying that everyone that has had a problem with a dog is either lying or delusional? Anthony Young,
You must live in such a perfect black and white world as you seen to indicate that you have never seen a “bad bog” or bad dog owner.  I would love to live in your world.  Are you implying that everyone that has had a problem with a dog is either lying or delusional?

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Whodat Whodat Carry a camera, take pictures ! Let them know the party is over. There are laws in place and they need to be respected. And Anthony it is black and white. If you don’t wear a seatbelt,drink and drive,speed apologies aren’t acceptable. There is a law in place, follow it. If you break it, you pay the consequences. Very simple. Carry a camera, take pictures ! Let them know the party is over. There are laws in place and they need to be respected. And Anthony it is black and white. If you don’t wear a seatbelt,drink and drive,speed apologies aren’t acceptable. There is a law in place, follow it. If you break it, you pay the consequences. Very simple.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Anthony Young http://aol.com Ah Whodat…......what a black and white world ! It must be wonderful to live in such perfection ? Anthony Young Ah Whodat…......what a black and white world ! It must be wonderful to live in such perfection ?
Anthony Young

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by PoPo PoPo That would require actually having police in the area to respond.  I highly doubt we will ever see an officer policing the beach. That would require actually having police in the area to respond.  I highly doubt we will ever see an officer policing the beach.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Whodat Whodat I would suggest to anyone who has a dog within 10 feet of them that doesn’t indicate a willingness for it, note the breed,get the owners name, report them to the authorities and demand a fine. Like Mr. Young said about lessons not learned,non considerate dog owners would learn a lesson about the law. Apologies needn’t apply, either have the animal under complete control or face the consequences. It’s pretty easy to understand and conform to. I would suggest to anyone who has a dog within 10 feet of them that doesn’t indicate a willingness for it, note the breed,get the owners name, report them to the authorities and demand a fine. Like Mr. Young said about lessons not learned,non considerate dog owners would learn a lesson about the law. Apologies needn’t apply, either have the animal under complete control or face the consequences. It’s pretty easy to understand and conform to.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Anthony Young http://aol.com Once again tales of desperate conditions concerning dogs on Willard Beach. Pictures taken around the time of the complaint show a different scene. “Charging” dogs from another complainant…......why does this not happen when I’m on the Beach ? Surely by now, some 8 years, an old man like me would have been “charged” at, knocked down or otherwise inconvenienced by a dog. What amazes me is that with Mr Rossi’s tale of woe, and some people say it happened, some say it didn’t, how on earth do you leave the Beach under those circumstances ? If you are so concerned about the intrusion on your enjoyment of the Beach, if you fear for your’s or your family’s safety, would you not vehemently protest ? Would you not confront those who were so rude and inconsiderate ? And if your protest fell on deaf ears or were subject to abusive replies would you not summon a peace officer ? I know that I would. I know that I have been bumped into, and so have my grandchildren, by the occasional exuberent dog but the owner has always been in the vicinity and has been profuse with their apologies.     I thought it was interesting in the Portland Press Herald article that the reporter had to apologise for not confirming part of another report. Perhaps he has yet to learn that lesson. Anthony Young Once again tales of desperate conditions concerning dogs on Willard Beach. Pictures taken around the time of the complaint show a different scene. “Charging” dogs from another complainant…......why does this not happen when I’m on the Beach ? Surely by now, some 8 years, an old man like me would have been “charged” at, knocked down or otherwise inconvenienced by a dog. What amazes me is that with Mr Rossi’s tale of woe, and some people say it happened, some say it didn’t, how on earth do you leave the Beach under those circumstances ? If you are so concerned about the intrusion on your enjoyment of the Beach, if you fear for your’s or your family’s safety, would you not vehemently protest ? Would you not confront those who were so rude and inconsiderate ? And if your protest fell on deaf ears or were subject to abusive replies would you not summon a peace officer ? I know that I would. I know that I have been bumped into, and so have my grandchildren, by the occasional exuberent dog but the owner has always been in the vicinity and has been profuse with their apologies.
    I thought it was interesting in the Portland Press Herald article that the reporter had to apologise for not confirming part of another report. Perhaps he has yet to learn that lesson.
Anthony Young

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by whodat whodat Dog park ? Dogs don’t get parks. If there isn’t enough “open space” available in your yard, don’t have one. There are plenty of options to walk your dog on a leash. Try the sidewalk and remember to pick up after it and yourself. Dog park ? Dogs don’t get parks. If there isn’t enough “open space” available in your yard, don’t have one. There are plenty of options to walk your dog on a leash. Try the sidewalk and remember to pick up after it and yourself.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by ugh! ugh! In the Winter, there are not 8 alternatives, only in the Summer.  Where is the dog park that was offered as an alternative so dogs would have somewhere to run off leash in the winter that would be maintained?  I see Gary said in a different post that he didn’t get enough positive feedback from “someone” so he is stomped his foot down and won’t work on it anymore… what will happen if he becomes a city councilor and is told to stuff it? In the Winter, there are not 8 alternatives, only in the Summer.  Where is the dog park that was offered as an alternative so dogs would have somewhere to run off leash in the winter that would be maintained?  I see Gary said in a different post that he didn’t get enough positive feedback from “someone” so he is stomped his foot down and won’t work on it anymore… what will happen if he becomes a city councilor and is told to stuff it?

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by whodat whodat Well put SOPO Resident. Once again this is not a PUBLIC ACCESS issue. It is an issue of DOGS using a public resource. Namely owners not being responsible,courteous or using common sense. People pay taxes to use the beach. Keep in mind there are 8 alternatives to the beach and the referendum question clearly is a 50/50 compromise. 6 months on for owners and their dogs, 6 months off. If that’s not the epitome of compromise, what is. Once again there are 8 alternatives to the beach, more than fair. Well put SOPO Resident. Once again this is not a PUBLIC ACCESS issue. It is an issue of DOGS using a public resource. Namely owners not being responsible,courteous or using common sense. People pay taxes to use the beach. Keep in mind there are 8 alternatives to the beach and the referendum question clearly is a 50/50 compromise. 6 months on for owners and their dogs, 6 months off. If that’s not the epitome of compromise, what is. Once again there are 8 alternatives to the beach, more than fair.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Resident of South Portland Resident of South Portland This past weekend my wife and I went for a week on Willard. When we got there two women were ahead of us going onto the beach with their dog. They released it immediaitely, started walking down the beach, and never looked back to see what their dog was doing (charging at people and other dogs) until they were 1/2 way down the beach. We also observed at least 3 dogs who charged at little kids and us with the owners not calling them back, and not even present as far as controlling their dogs. I would say at least 30% of the owners could not control their dogs when they charged at walkers, as I watched them having to call repeatedly, run after them, or simply walk away with the ignore tactic. Voice control is a joke, unless you have taken your dog to a serious training school. I used to find Willard a nice relaxing place to go. Now it’s frankly crammed with dogs running like mad around the place. I won’t go there anymore. I’m not interested in visiting a dog park, which is what it has turned into. Just to be clear, I pay taxes to use the beach, not the dogs. Most other communities do not allow dogs on their beaches for this exact reason. I have owned dogs for years, the problem is with the owners, not unlike when our teachers have to deal with irresponsible parents. People poop there dogs on my lawn throughout the year, despite my putting up signs asking them not to. I’ve gotten out of my car on several occasions and stepped into it. My suggestion is that the dog folks move to the area under the bridge, There is water, a view, and no bathers or picnics. Why isn’t the area under the bridge converted to a proper dog park??????????????? That would in my mind satisfy everyone. This past weekend my wife and I went for a week on Willard. When we got there two women were ahead of us going onto the beach with their dog. They released it immediaitely, started walking down the beach, and never looked back to see what their dog was doing (charging at people and other dogs) until they were 1/2 way down the beach. We also observed at least 3 dogs who charged at little kids and us with the owners not calling them back, and not even present as far as controlling their dogs. I would say at least 30% of the owners could not control their dogs when they charged at walkers, as I watched them having to call repeatedly, run after them, or simply walk away with the ignore tactic. Voice control is a joke, unless you have taken your dog to a serious training school. I used to find Willard a nice relaxing place to go. Now it’s frankly crammed with dogs running like mad around the place. I won’t go there anymore. I’m not interested in visiting a dog park, which is what it has turned into. Just to be clear, I pay taxes to use the beach, not the dogs. Most other communities do not allow dogs on their beaches for this exact reason. I have owned dogs for years, the problem is with the owners, not unlike when our teachers have to deal with irresponsible parents. People poop there dogs on my lawn throughout the year, despite my putting up signs asking them not to. I’ve gotten out of my car on several occasions and stepped into it. My suggestion is that the dog folks move to the area under the bridge, There is water, a view, and no bathers or picnics. Why isn’t the area under the bridge converted to a proper dog park??????????????? That would in my mind satisfy everyone.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Anthony Young http://aol.com The Beach is where I wwould like to walk with my dog, not somewhere else. I see many people laying and playing on the beach during the summer, including my family, and they do not have your problems with it. The hours that have now been enacted by the City Council are eminently fair. If you do not like dogs you have an hour from 6 to 7am without dogs, and then 10 hours from 9am to 7pm without dogs on the Beach. Yes, it is about liking or not liking dogs. People in South Portland who do not go to, and/or do not even know where Willard Beach, is will vote as to whether I can take my dogs to the Beach. As I understand it you would find this “reasonable” ? Anthony Young The Beach is where I wwould like to walk with my dog, not somewhere else. I see many people laying and playing on the beach during the summer, including my family, and they do not have your problems with it. The hours that have now been enacted by the City Council are eminently fair. If you do not like dogs you have an hour from 6 to 7am without dogs, and then 10 hours from 9am to 7pm without dogs on the Beach.
Yes, it is about liking or not liking dogs. People in South Portland who do not go to, and/or do not even know where Willard Beach, is will vote as to whether I can take my dogs to the Beach. As I understand it you would find this “reasonable” ?
Anthony Young

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Old Yeller Old Yeller It’s not about liking or disliking dogs, it’s about responsible use of a resource. It’s not fair to people who want to lay on the beach during the summer to have to do so where a dog urinates or defecates. Use your lawn for that purpose, walk your dog on the sidewalk and quit crying about not letting your dog use the beach. People want to use the beach in warmer months to recreate, not in the shadow of a few unreasonable people who want to use it as a dog park. You are welcome, your dog is not. Take the dog elsewhere, it’s not like you don’t have alternatives. It’s not about liking or disliking dogs, it’s about responsible use of a resource. It’s not fair to people who want to lay on the beach during the summer to have to do so where a dog urinates or defecates. Use your lawn for that purpose, walk your dog on the sidewalk and quit crying about not letting your dog use the beach. People want to use the beach in warmer months to recreate, not in the shadow of a few unreasonable people who want to use it as a dog park. You are welcome, your dog is not. Take the dog elsewhere, it’s not like you don’t have alternatives.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Anthony Young http://aol.com Usual rubbish…......the beach is a depository for much more dangerous objects than dog faeces, and at the least the dog excreta is picked up. People need beaches to walk on with their dogs, any dog lover will tell you that, but maybe if you have a dog it is not part of your family ? As I’ve said before the result of a referendum will depend on the side with the best PR and the amount of citizens who like or do not like dogs. It will not be the wishes of the Willard Beach users, pro or con dogs. Anthony Young Usual rubbish…......the beach is a depository for much more dangerous objects than dog faeces, and at the least the dog excreta is picked up. People need beaches to walk on with their dogs, any dog lover will tell you that, but maybe if you have a dog it is not part of your family ?
As I’ve said before the result of a referendum will depend on the side with the best PR and the amount of citizens who like or do not like dogs. It will not be the wishes of the Willard Beach users, pro or con dogs.
Anthony Young

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Dog lover Dog lover Don’t misconstrue my opinion. I think dogs should be allowed on Willard Beach. But the beach is only so big. It should be restricted to residents, but those residents should have more access, not less than they do now Don’t misconstrue my opinion. I think dogs should be allowed on Willard Beach. But the beach is only so big. It should be restricted to residents, but those residents should have more access, not less than they do now

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Old Yeller Old Yeller I agree Dog lover, Why should Willard continue to be a depository for doggie do beyond SoPo residents. The referendum will help to solve this issue and make the beach more appealing for humans to use it. Dogs don’t need beaches to walk on. People as always, will have access. I agree Dog lover, Why should Willard continue to be a depository for doggie do beyond SoPo residents. The referendum will help to solve this issue and make the beach more appealing for humans to use it. Dogs don’t need beaches to walk on. People as always, will have access.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Anthony Young http://aol.com I’m sorry I see no rationale in your statement. Many South Portland residents avail themselves of other free parks and beaches in other towns and states. If you are a dog lover go to Willard Beach and see all the “terrible conditions” that exist on Willard Beach. You will have a very difficult time finding them. Anthony Young I’m sorry I see no rationale in your statement. Many South Portland residents avail themselves of other free parks and beaches in other towns and states. If you are a dog lover go to Willard Beach and see all the “terrible conditions” that exist on Willard Beach. You will have a very difficult time finding them.
Anthony Young

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Dog lover Dog lover I love dogs, but you really should have to be a local resident to be able to walk your dog on Willard Beach I love dogs, but you really should have to be a local resident to be able to walk your dog on Willard Beach

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Anthony Young http://aol.com “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. “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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Mark Gandolfo Gandolfo@aol.com 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? 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?

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by moretaxesplease moretaxesplease 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by CommunitySplit CommunitySplit 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 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

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Annie Annie 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… 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…

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by SaveWillardBeach_from becoming private SaveWillardBeach_from becoming private 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Anthony Young http://aol.com Mike,   I appreciate your comments and have replied via your email address. Anthony Young Mike,
  I appreciate your comments and have replied via your email address.
Anthony Young

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by SaveWillardBeach_from becoming private SaveWillardBeach_from becoming private 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by anonymous anonymous 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by mike rottenaggie@yahoo.com 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? 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?

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Scott Scott 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Anthony Young http://aol.com 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by gary gary 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by vote_4_private_beach vote_4_private_beach 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by yournamehere yournamehere 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Annie Annie 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? 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?

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by DogGonnit! DogGonnit! 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 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by hatfield mccoy hatfield mccoy 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Gary Gary 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 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

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Scott Scott 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Gary Crosby Gary Crosby 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by jd scskier@excite.com 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Sharky Sharky 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Just Me Just Me 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by What'sUp What'sUp 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. 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.

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00 Comment by Scott Scott 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? 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?

]]> 2010-09-09T;18:58:03+00:00