The Special Election that occurred on December 3rd, was voted on with record turnout numbers, and passed by an overwhelming 73% margin read as follows:
"Shall the "amendments to Chapter 604 - Animal Control Ordinance adopted by the Town Council on October 2, 2013," be approved?" .....
By the vote of the people, the town council's controversial ban on off-leash dogs was overruled and the town's prior ordinance was reinstated.
**************************************************************************************************
"Shall the "amendments to Chapter 604 - Animal Control Ordinance adopted by the Town Council on October 2, 2013," be approved?" .....
By the vote of the people, the town council's controversial ban on off-leash dogs was overruled and the town's prior ordinance was reinstated.
**************************************************************************************************
Scarborough had a thoughtful and balanced ordinance for the use of the Town’s beaches by all – sun worshippers, swimmers, sandcastle builders, surfers, shell collectors, surf fishers and dog owners. That ordinance put our Town right in the middle of the road when compared to our neighbors, not the most restrictive and not the least. The ordinance also gave great weight to the needs of the animals that depend on the beaches for habitat and nourishment, such as piping plovers and other shore birds. The seasonal and time-of-day restrictions harmoniously balanced the use of the beaches by all of these groups. Most of the problems that occurred at the beaches were due to the lack of good education and lack of enforcement. We believe the town should enforce its ordinances before it creates stricter laws.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What are the new restrictions on dogs?
All dogs must be on a leash at all times, all year round on all Town property – fields, parks, streets and beaches. So there is no public property in Scarborough where a dog can chase a ball. Happy, healthy dogs need exercise! The length of leashes allowed when on the beach were decreased to 8 feet or less.
2. What were the dog restrictions in the old animal control ordinance?
During the summer season (June 15 to September 15), dogs were prohibited from the beach from 9am to 5pm, required to be on leashes from 5pm to sunrise, and allowed off leash but under voice control between sunrise and 9am. Off-leash dog time was limited to this short period when very few others were using the beach. During the non-summer season, there were no leash restrictions on dogs on the beaches. The summer season is different than the piping plover season.
3. What is the “piping plover season”?
USFWS asked the town to leash dogs on the beach from April 1-September 1. Maine Audubon and the MDIFWS have asked for various other times. The earliest time period that plovers have been recorded looking for nests in Scarborough is mid-April. They are fully fledged by the end of August and begin leaving in September.
4. What did the Town Council do at its October 2 meeting?
At that meeting, the Council went far beyond what even the US Fish and Wildlife Service had demanded in terms of restrictions on dogs on Town beaches. USFWS was concerned with dogs on the beaches during the piping plover season only. Then, without warning and with no public discussion about even further restrictions, the Council approved an ordinance that requires leashes on dogs at all times, all year round on all Town property – beaches, fields, parks and streets. Winter time and year round had never been on the table. The unfortunate piping plover incident in July and subsequent overreaching by the US Fish & Wildlife Service were a pretext for introducing tough dog restrictions that some Councilors had been publicly advocating for years. The Council’s surprise action at the October 2 meeting went far beyond even the USFWS’s demands, and far beyond what is a reasonable compromise that most citizens support.
5. What is the special election (or “referendum”) about?
After the October 2 meeting, a group of concerned citizens collected more than 2,493 signatures in order to call a special election to overturn the Council’s ordinance change that requires 24/7/365 leashing of dogs on all Town property. If the October 2 change is overturned, the Town’s previous animal control ordinance will be in effect again.
6. If I don’t like the old ordinance why should I vote NO on this referendum?
It will give the Town the opportunity to re-visit the old ordinance and have real dialogue about possible changes. No council should make a decision this big in less than 10 minutes without public input. What they vetted over the summer and what they did were two different things and if they can do that with this issue they can do that with any issue. There is a misconception that we want to allow dogs to run free at all times all year round, this is not true. We believe in “some” restrictions and a balanced approach that allows “some” time for all types of recreation. The “old” ordinance was not well enforced, nor were people well educated. Signage could be a lot better and consistent around Town. We understand that some people do not want dogs on the beaches at all. Others don’t want them on after 5 PM during the summer. We discovered through our petitioning process that many people did not know that dogs were not allowed off leash after 5PM. That’s because the ordinance was not enforced. Almost everyone that we talked with however believed that dogs do need somewhere to run. With this new ordinance that does not exist ANYWHERE at ANYTIME in Scarborough unless you are fortunate enough to own a few acres of your own.
Overturning the decision by the Town Council is the only mechanism by which the citizens will be able to get their voices heard in any sort of real dialogue. After we win this election we fully expect that the old ordinance will be revisited, either by the USFWS opening up the 12K fine again, or by the town putting together a work group to discuss the issues. We are hopeful that the Council will put together a committee to address all of the concerns of all of the stakeholders instead of making decisions based on threats and bullying by the USFWS.
7. Why try to change the Town Council’s action?
Fair and legitimate municipal government requires that all significant issues have a meaningful public discussion – with appropriate advanced notice and an opportunity for all to be heard. This was not the case with respect to the last-minute amendment that -- overnight, placed year round leash restrictions in all public places in Scarborough. In 10 minutes, a decision was made without public input. This decision made Scarborough one of the most dog-restrictive towns in the State, if not all of the New England seaboard. Scarborough’s citizens deserve a chance to voice their opinions before a significant change is made to any ordinance.
8. Isn’t this about piping plovers and the beach?
Only partially. The broader issue is public access to all public spaces, and the opportunity for all types of users to share resources. At first, the Council was specifically looking at leashing dogs on the beach, changing the dates to coincide better with the Plover Season, increasing enforcement and education. However, the Council’s surprise amendments to include all public property, and year round leashing (the plovers are gone from the beach during the winter) indicates that there was likely something else fueling their desire to leash dogs. Because only a few people spoke at the meetings in favor of a stricter leash law, we are left with only speculation.
9. Doesn’t the Animal Control Officer have records of fines, summonses or unruly dogs and irresponsible dog owners?
There have been no fines issued for Animal Control Ordinance violations at the beach despite that the officer has identified a number of unleashed dogs violating the ordinance. The Police Department records are not at all helpful because they are not dated, and we cannot tell if they are one year’s worth of data or 5 years. There is no standard protocol for recording police calls for animal control. We can provide copies upon request.
10. How is the endangered Piping Plover as a species doing for survival? What are the major causes of the lack of piping plover success?
Estimated numbers of breeding pairs of piping plovers in Maine has varied over the years, but overall they have been recovering. In 1986 there were an estimated 15 breeding pairs of piping plovers in Maine and 184 in New England. That number rose to 60 estimated pairs in 1996 in Maine and 590 in New England. After 1996, there was somewhat of a decline from the top numbers of breeding pairs observed in Maine, but not in New England as a whole. In 2006 the estimate in Maine was 55 and 657 in New England. What is clear is that there is no data on dogs. There is only one confirmed incident in which a dog killed a plover, and that was in 2013 in Pine Point. However, as of October 23, 2013 the Town still did not have the incident report from the Warden Service. We can provide copies of the USFWS statistics upon request.
11. What about the $12,000 fine from the US Fish & Wildlife Service?
USFWS accused the Town of “knowingly and maliciously” causing the death of the piping plover due to a lax animal control ordinance. An attorney from Pierce Atwood (hired by a local resident) presented the Town with arguments outlining the lack of a legal basis for the USFWS fine. In spite of the fact that USFWS had a questionable basis for fining the Town, they used the threat of a long and expensive legal proceeding if the Town refused to pay or settle. And, rather than stand up to USFWS as a matter of principle, the Town agreed to settle the fine for $500 in exchange for (a) significant restrictions on the access of dogs to Town beaches, (b) the hiring of a piping plover coordinator and (c) police presence on the beaches during the piping plover season, and a number of other stipulations. A copy of a summary of the Consent Agreement can be found on our website ShareScarborough.com and the full Consent Agreement is also available.
12. If the Town had to pay a $12,000 fine, would that money come from the Town’s general budget?
First, the “fine” is NOT a fine yet. It is a “proposed” fine. The proposal is the beginning of a civil proceeding, not a court case. If the town refused to accept responsibility for the incident and refused to pay the fine, then, and only then, would the USFWS have to decide whether to “actually” fine the town…and do so with a court proceeding. It is possible the USFWS would not initiate the case based on case law and the lack of data that they have.
If the Town agreed to pay the “fine,” tax revenue would have been the ultimate source of the payment. However, in order to “negotiate” the fine down to $500, the Town agreed to hire and pay a half-time piping plover coordinator for the months of April through August through at least 2018. Assuming $12 per hour for 20 hours per week for the 22 weeks from April through August, the piping plover coordinator will cost $5,280 per year or $26,400 over the five-year period through 2018. In addition, the Town agreed to “provide a law enforcement presence on the beaches” to enforce the animal control ordinance. Assuming that “presence” is 5 hours per week during the 22-week piping plover season and assuming that the average salary and benefits of a Town police officer are $25 per hour, that’s an annual cost of $2,750, or $13,750 over the five-year period. In addition to those amounts, the town agreed to annual reporting, education and outreach. We can assume at least a $10,000 expenditure for that.
So the Town agreed to total future salary costs of $50,000 or more in order to avoid a one-time “fine” of $12,000. Certainly not a prudent decision from a purely financial standpoint.
One of the options the town had to avoid those future expenses would be for the town to pay the $12,000 fine. Another option that the town had was to not claim responsibility and therefore not pay the fine. The Town still could have committed to education and enforcement, but would not have been tied to a Consent Agreement. The USFWS then would have had to decide whether it wanted to take this “proposed” fine and turn it into a court case. To the best of our knowledge the consent agreement has not yet been signed.
13. Did a private citizen offer to pay the $12,000 fine on behalf of the Town?
Yes. A private citizen made an offer to the Town Manager to pay the fine on behalf of the Town. There was no response from the Town. One councilor alluded to the fact that there were too many strings attached. The strings attached were no more than those required by the USFWS focusing on education and enforcement. This citizen wanted to maintain summer season off leash time only in the morning.
14. What’s happening with the dredging of Scarborough harbor by the US Army Corps of Engineers?
Fishermen, Clammers and recreational boaters were concerned that the dredge will be held up. It will not. The Army Corps of Engineers has completed the bid process. They are expecting to sign a contract in mid-November with a private contractor to perform the dredging project. This petition is not holding up the dredge, nor is the USFWS according to the Town Manager. He is confident that the dredge will be completed this year.
Since the project involves piping plover habitat (Western Beach), the Corps had to enter into an “informal consultation” with the US Fish & Wildlife Service. It was during that process that USFWS tried to compel the Town into adopting USFWS’s “guidelines” with respect to dogs on beaches. The guidelines are not law.
The USFWS still has the ability to require the Corps to enter into a “formal consultation” -- a more detailed study of the project and its impact. The formal consultation guidelines are outlined in a document that is over 300 pages long. A “formal consultation” requires real biological data, and the data on dogs and leashes is not adequate to make judgments that would hold up to a “formal consultation.”
15. I often see dog poop on the beach. Won’t the new ordinance help?
No. Unfortunately, a small minority of dog owners do not respect their fellow citizens or the beautiful Scarborough beaches. It’s just like other cases of small groups of people ignoring society’s norms and laws -- some people throw fast-food wrappers out their car windows, some people drive while intoxicated, some people rob banks. In all these examples, society has two possible responses: education and enforcement. A group of responsible dog owners will gladly undertake additional education for all dog owners. Unfortunately, the Town has a very poor record of enforcing its existing animal control ordinances. It is difficult to see how enacting a more restrictive ordinance will make any difference as long as no concrete steps are taken on enforcement. Furthermore, it is many of the responsible dog owners that pick up other messes on the beaches, and if these people are not there with their own dogs the situation might actually get worse.
16. I’ve seen too many unruly dogs on the beach. Will the new ordinance improve that?
No. Again, the ordinance is not the issue… education and enforcement are.
17. Can't dog owners take their dogs to a dog park?
First, Scarborough does not have a dog park. The nearest dog parks are one half hour to forty minutes away. This is not a viable option for people who need to run their dogs daily. Second, to create and maintain a dog park in Scarborough will be expensive, significantly more than the $12,000 fine. Minimum requirements for a dog park that would be safe and usable would require a minimum of 1 to 2 acres of land, fencing, a double gate system, parking area, and separate areas for large and small dogs. Waterville spent $20,000 establishing their dog park; Brunswick, $50,0000. And, in addition to the initial construction, there are yearly maintenance costs, which can add up to another $5000 annually. It is also important to note that establishing a dog park is not an immediate solution. In other communities, where to build it is just one issue that has generated concern and contention that significantly delayed or even prevented the establishment of any dog park.
Most importantly, there are serious safety issues to consider for dogs and owners going to a dog park. While dog parks provide a fenced in area to exercise off leash, and an opportunity for socialization for both the dogs and their owners, dog parks can also be breeding grounds for undesirable behaviors. Putting dogs together in an enclosed space can tend to bring out traits that are less likely to be demonstrated when running your dog in an open area. Some dogs do not desire interaction with strange dogs; some dogs are shy or fearful, and, some dogs are aggressive. Bullying behavior, defensive aggression and resource guarding are common examples of undesirable behaviors observed in dog parks, but not all dog owners agree on what is problem behavior and how to manage it. Simply put, a dog park is not the answer for all dogs and dog owners, and will never replace reasonable off-leash access to beaches.
18. How can I help financially support this effort?
A group of concerned dog owners has formed a Political Action Committee (“PAC”) to raise funds in support of preserving thoughtful and reasonable access to the Town’s beaches by dogs and their owners. If you would like to support this effort, please send a check payable to “Dog Owners Greater Scarborough” to D.O.G.S., 37 Vesper Street, Scarborough, ME 04074. If you prefer to make a donation online please visit the “Fundraising” tab on this website where you can make a donation using a Paypal Account, a credit or debit card.
*****************************************************************************************************
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What are the new restrictions on dogs?
All dogs must be on a leash at all times, all year round on all Town property – fields, parks, streets and beaches. So there is no public property in Scarborough where a dog can chase a ball. Happy, healthy dogs need exercise! The length of leashes allowed when on the beach were decreased to 8 feet or less.
2. What were the dog restrictions in the old animal control ordinance?
During the summer season (June 15 to September 15), dogs were prohibited from the beach from 9am to 5pm, required to be on leashes from 5pm to sunrise, and allowed off leash but under voice control between sunrise and 9am. Off-leash dog time was limited to this short period when very few others were using the beach. During the non-summer season, there were no leash restrictions on dogs on the beaches. The summer season is different than the piping plover season.
3. What is the “piping plover season”?
USFWS asked the town to leash dogs on the beach from April 1-September 1. Maine Audubon and the MDIFWS have asked for various other times. The earliest time period that plovers have been recorded looking for nests in Scarborough is mid-April. They are fully fledged by the end of August and begin leaving in September.
4. What did the Town Council do at its October 2 meeting?
At that meeting, the Council went far beyond what even the US Fish and Wildlife Service had demanded in terms of restrictions on dogs on Town beaches. USFWS was concerned with dogs on the beaches during the piping plover season only. Then, without warning and with no public discussion about even further restrictions, the Council approved an ordinance that requires leashes on dogs at all times, all year round on all Town property – beaches, fields, parks and streets. Winter time and year round had never been on the table. The unfortunate piping plover incident in July and subsequent overreaching by the US Fish & Wildlife Service were a pretext for introducing tough dog restrictions that some Councilors had been publicly advocating for years. The Council’s surprise action at the October 2 meeting went far beyond even the USFWS’s demands, and far beyond what is a reasonable compromise that most citizens support.
5. What is the special election (or “referendum”) about?
After the October 2 meeting, a group of concerned citizens collected more than 2,493 signatures in order to call a special election to overturn the Council’s ordinance change that requires 24/7/365 leashing of dogs on all Town property. If the October 2 change is overturned, the Town’s previous animal control ordinance will be in effect again.
6. If I don’t like the old ordinance why should I vote NO on this referendum?
It will give the Town the opportunity to re-visit the old ordinance and have real dialogue about possible changes. No council should make a decision this big in less than 10 minutes without public input. What they vetted over the summer and what they did were two different things and if they can do that with this issue they can do that with any issue. There is a misconception that we want to allow dogs to run free at all times all year round, this is not true. We believe in “some” restrictions and a balanced approach that allows “some” time for all types of recreation. The “old” ordinance was not well enforced, nor were people well educated. Signage could be a lot better and consistent around Town. We understand that some people do not want dogs on the beaches at all. Others don’t want them on after 5 PM during the summer. We discovered through our petitioning process that many people did not know that dogs were not allowed off leash after 5PM. That’s because the ordinance was not enforced. Almost everyone that we talked with however believed that dogs do need somewhere to run. With this new ordinance that does not exist ANYWHERE at ANYTIME in Scarborough unless you are fortunate enough to own a few acres of your own.
Overturning the decision by the Town Council is the only mechanism by which the citizens will be able to get their voices heard in any sort of real dialogue. After we win this election we fully expect that the old ordinance will be revisited, either by the USFWS opening up the 12K fine again, or by the town putting together a work group to discuss the issues. We are hopeful that the Council will put together a committee to address all of the concerns of all of the stakeholders instead of making decisions based on threats and bullying by the USFWS.
7. Why try to change the Town Council’s action?
Fair and legitimate municipal government requires that all significant issues have a meaningful public discussion – with appropriate advanced notice and an opportunity for all to be heard. This was not the case with respect to the last-minute amendment that -- overnight, placed year round leash restrictions in all public places in Scarborough. In 10 minutes, a decision was made without public input. This decision made Scarborough one of the most dog-restrictive towns in the State, if not all of the New England seaboard. Scarborough’s citizens deserve a chance to voice their opinions before a significant change is made to any ordinance.
8. Isn’t this about piping plovers and the beach?
Only partially. The broader issue is public access to all public spaces, and the opportunity for all types of users to share resources. At first, the Council was specifically looking at leashing dogs on the beach, changing the dates to coincide better with the Plover Season, increasing enforcement and education. However, the Council’s surprise amendments to include all public property, and year round leashing (the plovers are gone from the beach during the winter) indicates that there was likely something else fueling their desire to leash dogs. Because only a few people spoke at the meetings in favor of a stricter leash law, we are left with only speculation.
9. Doesn’t the Animal Control Officer have records of fines, summonses or unruly dogs and irresponsible dog owners?
There have been no fines issued for Animal Control Ordinance violations at the beach despite that the officer has identified a number of unleashed dogs violating the ordinance. The Police Department records are not at all helpful because they are not dated, and we cannot tell if they are one year’s worth of data or 5 years. There is no standard protocol for recording police calls for animal control. We can provide copies upon request.
10. How is the endangered Piping Plover as a species doing for survival? What are the major causes of the lack of piping plover success?
Estimated numbers of breeding pairs of piping plovers in Maine has varied over the years, but overall they have been recovering. In 1986 there were an estimated 15 breeding pairs of piping plovers in Maine and 184 in New England. That number rose to 60 estimated pairs in 1996 in Maine and 590 in New England. After 1996, there was somewhat of a decline from the top numbers of breeding pairs observed in Maine, but not in New England as a whole. In 2006 the estimate in Maine was 55 and 657 in New England. What is clear is that there is no data on dogs. There is only one confirmed incident in which a dog killed a plover, and that was in 2013 in Pine Point. However, as of October 23, 2013 the Town still did not have the incident report from the Warden Service. We can provide copies of the USFWS statistics upon request.
11. What about the $12,000 fine from the US Fish & Wildlife Service?
USFWS accused the Town of “knowingly and maliciously” causing the death of the piping plover due to a lax animal control ordinance. An attorney from Pierce Atwood (hired by a local resident) presented the Town with arguments outlining the lack of a legal basis for the USFWS fine. In spite of the fact that USFWS had a questionable basis for fining the Town, they used the threat of a long and expensive legal proceeding if the Town refused to pay or settle. And, rather than stand up to USFWS as a matter of principle, the Town agreed to settle the fine for $500 in exchange for (a) significant restrictions on the access of dogs to Town beaches, (b) the hiring of a piping plover coordinator and (c) police presence on the beaches during the piping plover season, and a number of other stipulations. A copy of a summary of the Consent Agreement can be found on our website ShareScarborough.com and the full Consent Agreement is also available.
12. If the Town had to pay a $12,000 fine, would that money come from the Town’s general budget?
First, the “fine” is NOT a fine yet. It is a “proposed” fine. The proposal is the beginning of a civil proceeding, not a court case. If the town refused to accept responsibility for the incident and refused to pay the fine, then, and only then, would the USFWS have to decide whether to “actually” fine the town…and do so with a court proceeding. It is possible the USFWS would not initiate the case based on case law and the lack of data that they have.
If the Town agreed to pay the “fine,” tax revenue would have been the ultimate source of the payment. However, in order to “negotiate” the fine down to $500, the Town agreed to hire and pay a half-time piping plover coordinator for the months of April through August through at least 2018. Assuming $12 per hour for 20 hours per week for the 22 weeks from April through August, the piping plover coordinator will cost $5,280 per year or $26,400 over the five-year period through 2018. In addition, the Town agreed to “provide a law enforcement presence on the beaches” to enforce the animal control ordinance. Assuming that “presence” is 5 hours per week during the 22-week piping plover season and assuming that the average salary and benefits of a Town police officer are $25 per hour, that’s an annual cost of $2,750, or $13,750 over the five-year period. In addition to those amounts, the town agreed to annual reporting, education and outreach. We can assume at least a $10,000 expenditure for that.
So the Town agreed to total future salary costs of $50,000 or more in order to avoid a one-time “fine” of $12,000. Certainly not a prudent decision from a purely financial standpoint.
One of the options the town had to avoid those future expenses would be for the town to pay the $12,000 fine. Another option that the town had was to not claim responsibility and therefore not pay the fine. The Town still could have committed to education and enforcement, but would not have been tied to a Consent Agreement. The USFWS then would have had to decide whether it wanted to take this “proposed” fine and turn it into a court case. To the best of our knowledge the consent agreement has not yet been signed.
13. Did a private citizen offer to pay the $12,000 fine on behalf of the Town?
Yes. A private citizen made an offer to the Town Manager to pay the fine on behalf of the Town. There was no response from the Town. One councilor alluded to the fact that there were too many strings attached. The strings attached were no more than those required by the USFWS focusing on education and enforcement. This citizen wanted to maintain summer season off leash time only in the morning.
14. What’s happening with the dredging of Scarborough harbor by the US Army Corps of Engineers?
Fishermen, Clammers and recreational boaters were concerned that the dredge will be held up. It will not. The Army Corps of Engineers has completed the bid process. They are expecting to sign a contract in mid-November with a private contractor to perform the dredging project. This petition is not holding up the dredge, nor is the USFWS according to the Town Manager. He is confident that the dredge will be completed this year.
Since the project involves piping plover habitat (Western Beach), the Corps had to enter into an “informal consultation” with the US Fish & Wildlife Service. It was during that process that USFWS tried to compel the Town into adopting USFWS’s “guidelines” with respect to dogs on beaches. The guidelines are not law.
The USFWS still has the ability to require the Corps to enter into a “formal consultation” -- a more detailed study of the project and its impact. The formal consultation guidelines are outlined in a document that is over 300 pages long. A “formal consultation” requires real biological data, and the data on dogs and leashes is not adequate to make judgments that would hold up to a “formal consultation.”
15. I often see dog poop on the beach. Won’t the new ordinance help?
No. Unfortunately, a small minority of dog owners do not respect their fellow citizens or the beautiful Scarborough beaches. It’s just like other cases of small groups of people ignoring society’s norms and laws -- some people throw fast-food wrappers out their car windows, some people drive while intoxicated, some people rob banks. In all these examples, society has two possible responses: education and enforcement. A group of responsible dog owners will gladly undertake additional education for all dog owners. Unfortunately, the Town has a very poor record of enforcing its existing animal control ordinances. It is difficult to see how enacting a more restrictive ordinance will make any difference as long as no concrete steps are taken on enforcement. Furthermore, it is many of the responsible dog owners that pick up other messes on the beaches, and if these people are not there with their own dogs the situation might actually get worse.
16. I’ve seen too many unruly dogs on the beach. Will the new ordinance improve that?
No. Again, the ordinance is not the issue… education and enforcement are.
17. Can't dog owners take their dogs to a dog park?
First, Scarborough does not have a dog park. The nearest dog parks are one half hour to forty minutes away. This is not a viable option for people who need to run their dogs daily. Second, to create and maintain a dog park in Scarborough will be expensive, significantly more than the $12,000 fine. Minimum requirements for a dog park that would be safe and usable would require a minimum of 1 to 2 acres of land, fencing, a double gate system, parking area, and separate areas for large and small dogs. Waterville spent $20,000 establishing their dog park; Brunswick, $50,0000. And, in addition to the initial construction, there are yearly maintenance costs, which can add up to another $5000 annually. It is also important to note that establishing a dog park is not an immediate solution. In other communities, where to build it is just one issue that has generated concern and contention that significantly delayed or even prevented the establishment of any dog park.
Most importantly, there are serious safety issues to consider for dogs and owners going to a dog park. While dog parks provide a fenced in area to exercise off leash, and an opportunity for socialization for both the dogs and their owners, dog parks can also be breeding grounds for undesirable behaviors. Putting dogs together in an enclosed space can tend to bring out traits that are less likely to be demonstrated when running your dog in an open area. Some dogs do not desire interaction with strange dogs; some dogs are shy or fearful, and, some dogs are aggressive. Bullying behavior, defensive aggression and resource guarding are common examples of undesirable behaviors observed in dog parks, but not all dog owners agree on what is problem behavior and how to manage it. Simply put, a dog park is not the answer for all dogs and dog owners, and will never replace reasonable off-leash access to beaches.
18. How can I help financially support this effort?
A group of concerned dog owners has formed a Political Action Committee (“PAC”) to raise funds in support of preserving thoughtful and reasonable access to the Town’s beaches by dogs and their owners. If you would like to support this effort, please send a check payable to “Dog Owners Greater Scarborough” to D.O.G.S., 37 Vesper Street, Scarborough, ME 04074. If you prefer to make a donation online please visit the “Fundraising” tab on this website where you can make a donation using a Paypal Account, a credit or debit card.
*****************************************************************************************************
If you would like to learn more about the "deal" our town is planning to sign with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, please check out the official Consent Agreement that includes the hiring of a "Piping Plover Coordinator" for a five year term. The first document is a summary of the agreement whereas the second is the full "deal."
- Below is a copy of Scarborough's animal control ordinance. The most recent changes to the ordinance are highlighted in red.
Here is a nice one page document that summarizes some of the facts around what caused this special to come to be:
To view the actual town council meeting during which they voted to ban off-leash dogs year round from all public places, please follow the link below to the Town's website. The link can be found under "Online Resources." You will also find contact info for each of the town councilors on this page if you would like to contact them directly:
http://www.scarborough.me.us/council/index.html
Audubon Society 2012 Piping Plover Report
http://maineaudubon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2012-Piping-Plover-and-Least-Tern-Report-no-Appendix-VI.pdf
This document is a summary of individual town ordinances with regard to dogs on the beach PRIOR to the passage of the recent ordinance changes. Scarborough is now officially the most dog UN-friendly town in the state of Maine with the passage of the October 2nd ordinance amendments!
southern_maine_beach_dog_ordinances_by_town.docx | |
File Size: | 15 kb |
File Type: | docx |
This is a great, one page document that summarizes the issue at hand (courtesy of Steve Hanly). For those collecting signatures or who would like to distribute flyers, this is a great one to print off and share.
dogs-infosheet01-v2.docx | |
File Size: | 90 kb |
File Type: | docx |