Acrimonious Competition for Shared Public Spaces...

Indeed, March 31st, the end of season, was a thing most dreaded: marked as a dark day on many calendars.  In an interdependent relationship with their dogs (appearing not so curious: to many whose car seats were draped in old blankets), some seemingly spent the entirety of April through September as though those months represented a self-fashioned prison: impatiently waiting for October's parole, n'er able to find a comparable stand-in for the beach during the intervening warm months.  Many described slipping into a near profound depression. 

To some in the community-at-large, it might appear odd—no, moreso senseless—how dismissively summer was regarded by certain dog guardians: viewing that what most regard as the best months of the year, as something that was merely to be endured with a consuming glumness. 

Indeed, these dog guardians, gripped by a stupefying malaise, plodded through summer with a despairing remorse and regret: evidence of madness, surely? 

Those of us so afflicted, however, didn't spend effort in analysis or take concern for need of explanation: if you had a dog in your family, doubtless you could understand!  Nowhere could we better come to flourish physically, mentally, or spiritually... to be at peace with this planet... than at the off-leash beach.  And that could only be had in winter, which, always seemed to be “very nearly over.”

Sea change...
We just KNEW they'd "ruin it..." 

Startled dog guardians read that the Parks & Recreation Commission (specifically, the Rules Subcommittee) was considering the imposition of an extraordinary and punishing $400 or $800 permit fee to bring a “pet” (horse or dog) to the beach: the high figure, assigned to discipline—or discourage—
non-Fairfield residents.

That alone, would surely spell the end of winter-season beach access for families with dogs: when interviewed, a local expert observed that the “enormously high” figure would “wipe out most of the people who go down there.”  Even of those with financial means, it was doubtful that on basis of principle, that they would be willing to be held hostage to such fees.  At the beach itself, astonished dog guardians questioned: Who would be left?  What dogs would be here for mine to play with? And for those with more than one animal: were the fees per dog or horse?  Gallingly, no answers were forthcoming...

Further, the Rules Subcommittee was considering abridging the season by a month at both ends: from the then-current October 1st - April 1st; to the shorter November 1st - February 28th.   All the better to separate the dog-haves and the dog-have-nots: even though often, intrepid dogs and their sturdy guardians are the only ones venturing to deserted Fairfield beaches in harsh weather.

From six months to four months.  At $100 a month ($200 if you were not a Fairfield resident), some began to mash the math: most being weekend-only beach-goers, that worked out to as much as $25 a visit… to walk a dog on a cold, deserted beach?  It seemed bizarre, unimaginable… unconscionable… that anyone could contemplate fees of that level, and proffer it with seriousness as reasonable public policy.

Bound by those metrics, it appeared to be already over: weeks later into the discussion, it didn’t seem that anyone knew anyone who would be capable of visiting the beach with their dog… or, just as importantly, would willingly yield to that regarded as “town-sanctioned ransom.”  But then, some theorized, perhaps that result was the idea:
no dogs at the beach.

Why not Mutual Respect
 for Diverse POVs... ? 

Certainly, it was obvious, that there would always be people who disliked dogs at the beach (indeed, for some: any public open space).  For example, certain abutting homeowners owners were weary that dogs repeatedly contravened their property lines; others were irritated because of “the mess”; or because, as the First Selectman wrote us: “...we've received some furious letters from people who have been jumped on by dogs.”
 
Reasonable dog guardians respect that private property borders are contiguous to Fairfield's public beaches in many places; and, attending fences are erected for privacy.  Common sense dictates that pursuing a “border war” sabotages potential to build communication channels between the stakeholders.
 
Undeniably, “the mess” can be appalling; and conscientious dog guardians are disappointed and embarrassed that some don't—or worse: even refuse—to clean up after their animals.

Dog guardians must also acknowledge that not everyone shares their love of canines; and further need to accept that some people are afraid of dogs—perhaps paralyzingly so—for a myriad of reasons.  Some, just don't wish to be around them.  There are many reasons a person might find dogs objectionable—that is for an individual to choose for him or herself, without regard to the opinions of others—and those with dogs in their families should hold no privilege to criticize that decision-making.

But many also questioned
whether a sense of proportion
was being intentionally discarded:

... and questioned how it was possible, so unknowingly, that the situation had come to such an abrupt impasse.  Were dogs intentionally wandering into contiguous yards?  How serious was the problem of dog waste?  How many other types of complaints had been made, and were there any injuries?  What were the statistics, of winter-season beach use: evaluating numbers of dog guardians to non-dog guardians?  Couldn’t a balanced approach respectfully incorporate the interests of all?

Given the understanding that across most breeds, a dog's cognitive abilities are comparable to those of a 3-year old child: what would a truly rational expectation for their behavior be, overall, and what limits should be realistically set?  Do we become angry at a child who absentmindedly bumps into us at the playground? 

Over time, more than a few questioned the reasonableness of complaints, but beyond that, if some weren't misrepresented or even entirely fictional: authored to serve a purpose.  In parallel, a number of dog guardians had been frustrated observing those few “hardened” joggers who seemed to stomp straight through groups of dogs, angrily scattering them in every direction... surely creating a combative platform for debate.

Was it perverse that the dog guardian should likewise covet the expectation that he could enjoy the beach untrammeled, with his entire family... when that included his dog?  Shouldn't town government recognize that prohibiting dogs means prohibiting families?  ... that for many, focused on their definition of family: that such a policy can singularly annihilate the town's reputation?  Why was there such acrimonious competition for use of a public beach?

A minority of miscreants are often used to characterize the rest...  

This is a tendency which we caution all in this conversation must resist: since it is fair to say that there would be many competing stories to tell.

There will always be competition within shared public spaces in Fairfield.  Discussion must depart from that platform.  The key is managing those dynamics to accommodate the varying interests and expectations of the thousands who visit the beaches throughout the year, and in resisting the tendency to incorporate intolerance as the over-arching theme that frames the examination of beach access.
 
It's now ten years on: in 2018, dog guardians look back and many are satisfied at the compromise reached with the town in 2008.  Not all agree.  And, for example, some are rightly critical of the (2008; and still standing) Town signage that simply presumed dog guardians to be discourteous.

Lacking an essential fairness of representation?

Winter season beach access should not be dismissively regarded as a “privilege.”  It is something that taxpayers with dogs have earned, and some even bought houses in Fairfield on that expectation.

In the 2016 debate, the Commission seemingly held a fundamental misunderstanding that off-season “beach access” held no intrinsic value to the Town, and that only tangible recreational venues contributed to the image of Fairfield as a place to visit or invest in as a place to live and buy property.  This is a stunning miscalculation.

As frustration escalates, dog guardians must continue to advocate for themselves, to secure participation in a respectful exchange of ideas between the various stakeholders.  As part of that process, valuing an essential fairness of representation is important: ensuring for recognition that beach access is a fundamental asset to the Town, and should be regarded with a measure of favor similar to other recreational assets that the Town endorses and pursues.
 
The entire paradigm of how beach access is regarded in Fairfield needs to dramatically improve.  This will necessitate a collaborative effort among competing groups.  That goal, however, should be easily achievable with reasoned energy that disallows incorporating intolerance as its over-arching framework.