[Rhodes22-list] the dog story continues

[Rik Sandberg]

Michael,

I can certainly understand your frustration with these anti-dog people.
Reminds me of the people who have moved in or built new houses next to/near
a certain race track that has been there (in continuous operation) for 50
years, then have the audacity to complain about the noise.

I guess I could understand their arguments if there had always been
restrictions on dogs in that park, and someone was trying to take the
restrictions away. But, since it has always been open before, they should
either continue to go there, learn to like dogs and shut up, or go to the
park they were going to before and shut up. Either way, shut up is the key
part.

My 2 cents worth
Rik
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Meltzer" <mjm@michaelmeltzer.com>
To: <rhodes22-list@rhodes22.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 3:34 PM
Subject: [Rhodes22-list] the dog story continues


even I get i miss the address complete too :-)


http://www.westport-news.com/Stories/0,1413,100%257E4435%257E864638,00.html
http://www.westport-news.com/Stories/0,1413,100%257E4435%257E864646,00.html

and now a preview of fridays paper
-----Original Message-----
From: Roland and Barbara Paul [mailto:barbara.roland.paul@worldnet.att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:27 AM
To: chennessy@bcnnew.com; minuteman@ctcentral.com;
jfphjensen@worldnet.att.net; scheff@optonline.net; sheffer@stonypoint.net;
theodore_youngling@prusec.com; marlartm@optonline.net; gwentcamp@aol.com;
shelton@optonline.net; mgwebber@snet.net; aabrams@optonline.net;
Debrrath@aol.com; chaberst@aol.com; jkplunker@aol.com; rlichter@aol.com;
geblaw@optonline.net; rwmtophat@aol.com; gfrancil@optonline.net;
ladymchnry@aol.com; jaybee4@compuserve.com; radulphum@juno.com;
bankside@juno.com; mjslez@juno.com; saulhaffner@hotmail.com;
recyclerron@aol.com; flynnamflynn@aol.com; garvelh@cs.com; jgklinge@aol.com;
LSRomeMD@worldnet.att.net; rubin@snet.net; sailfiend@aol.com;
donniebrk@aol.com; joseloff@optonline.net; wfmeyer@optonline.net;
reartm@aol.com; wcclois@webquill.com; Mary.Moers.Wenig@quinnipiac.edu
Subject: new dog regulation



The new dog regulation is widely appreciated and should be upheld by the
RTM.  However, there is an opportunity to make it better, that is, to
require leashing all along the beach.   We all would agree that many
people's favorite recreational activities come at unacceptable costs to the
general public. Nude swimming, for example, some people's favorite
recreational activity, may offend many people's sensibilities. There is no
designated area for that special interest group on any of Connecticut's
public beaches, including Westport's. People must wear bathing suits on all
parts of the beach so that the general public will not feel constrained from
using any part of the beach.
Overnight camping, some people's favorite recreational activity, is not
given a designated area on small town beaches, including Westport's. That
activity could produce unacceptable noise and litter and constrain the
general public from using that area. People can sleep there during the day
without setting up camp there.

Boisterous beer parties, which some people consider a favorite recreation,
may seem offensive to others and could result in the danger of broken glass
and rowdy behavior. No special areas are set aside for that activity on any
town's beach, including Westport's, because the public would feel
constrained from enjoying themselves on that area of the beach.

Dog owners whose favorite recreational activity is letting their dogs run
freely on the beach can't possibly control their dogs from physically
interfering with people and impacting on their safety, health and enjoyment
of the beach. They are not given a designated area on any other beach in CT
for their special interest. Dogs are banned entirely on almost all of them,
and they must be leashed and under control on the entire beach in the two
towns that allow them there. This assures that the general public will not
feel constrained from enjoying the whole beach. With our new and long
overdue regulation, which is much appreciated, the general public here will
continue to feel constrained from enjoying themselves on a major area of
Compo Beach.

Why are we the only town to cater to a special interest group's favorite
activity when it impacts the general public's access to the entire beach?
Supposing one hundred or one thousand people pressed for an area of Compo to
be designated for nude swimming? (Even some vocal dog owners might object to
this.)  What precedent would there be in Westport to rule it out? Once we
have catered to one group's favorite recreational activity, even though it
has intolerable consequences for the general public, would it become legally
or in any way appropriate to refuse to designate other areas there for
unrestricted special interest activity when there are other places where
they can be carried on? Numerous public area are especially available in
Westport to any dogs owners from any town who wish to have their dogs run
free.   Westport bought very expensive land for the public, and most people
wouldn't think of going there because of free running dogs.

Compo Beach is small and precious to ALL of the general public. Every
special interest group will reason that their favorite activity is valid,
God given, or popular enough to warrant a specially designated area at the
beach. If we designated, let's say, four special interest areas, there
wouldn't be much public beach for the public to enjoy.  For example, if we
designated part A of the beach to one special interest group, part B to
another, part C to another, and part D to another, what a conundrum it would
be for the general public to figure out which part of the beach they can
really enjoy themselves on! Those who don't mind what goes on in parts B and
C will ask how they can get from part A to D without compromising their
safety, their family's sensibilities, their enjoyment. What is Westport
getting itself into by designating a large area of the beach to a special
interest group?

So that we don't have to constrain people from using parts of Compo that
have unacceptable risks to them, the RTM should consider modifying the new
regulation to require leashing of dogs all along the beach off season. With
appropriate restrictions on this special interest group, as on any other
special interest group, we can insure that everyone will have access to the
whole beach, the way a public beach is meant to be.

Barbara Paul, 8 Ellery Lane, Westport CT 06880, 226-4684